Case Study Analysis 2
About 6 to 9 Pages
This paper should be on the same topic, and doing much of the same analysis, as your individual case analysis presentation. As with your first case study analysis papers, I am wanting you to take that work, and what you gained from the class discussion following your presentation and my feedback, and write a more formal (i.e. with citations and proper grammar, etc.) academic paper exploring the ethical issues involved in your case study.
Part of your paper should explain what your case is about, though you want to make sure that you are only explaining relevant information and not just summarizing everything you learned when doing your research. You should use your research to expand upon what the case says, but make sure you cite all of your sources, and make sure your sources are reliable and only concern the facts of the case, not moral positions about it or the moral thinkers you are using. The rest of your paper should analyze why the case presents a moral problem and explore how we may reason our way through it. You should draw on at least two of the moral texts we’ve read, and shouldn’t use any outside sources to help you with those moral thinkers. To do that adequately requires that you present the ideas of the thinkers you are using. Ideally, you would reach some definitive conclusions from this reasoning: either that one party or position is right and another is wrong, or that the conflict arose from a fundamental misunderstanding of interested parties’ moral responsibilities, or that the moral conflict is only superficial, or that there is a moral middle ground that meets everyone’s responsibilities, etc.
As an academic paper, you should have a clear thesis (probably at the end of your introduction), and a logical argumentative structure. You should have a citation for any idea that doesn’t either originate in your head, come from general knowledge, or come directly from the description of the case study. That includes citations of the moral thinkers you are using in your analysis and for any research you did you did about the case. That having been said, you should restrict your research to the facts of the case, and just draw from the philosophers we’ve read.
You will also have gotten feedback from me about your presentations before your paper is due; your papers should correct any problems I pointed out in my feedback.
Explanation of the case: 30%
Analysis and use of philosophers: 45%
Writing mechanics: 25%
**************************************************************
Some Tips
****You do not need to use the two moral thinkers used in the powepoint or any of the same details just included for an idea of what the case study was about *** You can use any 2 of Carl cranor, Smart or WD Ross as moral thinkers i have attached there readings
1. Alot of controversy about lootboxes
2. go into more depth about who was harmed
3.focus more on the gambling
4. make a better moral question that can be argued both sides
5. stick to what moral thinkers said
What can be done to regulate/ how much can be done knowing how kids are being taken advantage of.
****************************************************************
