Structuring Assignment 2: Four Ethical Perspectives Explained

Assignment Overview

We do not require a particular format or template for this assignment. It is possible to structure this assignment in a variety of ways. But if you would like some guidelines, this is one approach that would cover the essentials: 

1. Introduce the assignment. It would make sense to treat this assignment as an essay, with introduction, body and conclusion. Be brief and avoid repetition. 
2. Briefly introduce the scenario you have selected – but DON’T just retell the story (some students waste a lot of space doing this). Provide a preliminary identification of the features and issues that make the situation look like an ethical problem, and perhaps some possible responses. Some of the details of the scenario are not going to be essential here, while some will be very important and worth elaborating upon. 
3. Introduce and apply each of the four ethical perspectives to the scenario. You can start with a brief explanation of the perspective in your own words, using references in support. These references can be from the Learning Guides, Readings (in the Learning Guides) or from independent research. Then, apply the perspective to the relevant aspects the scenario. For example, if you are applying consequentialism, what consequences can you identify and for whom? If you are applying deontology, what duties and rights come into play, and so on. You could break this part of your assignment into four sections using headings if you wish. 
4. Identify the major ethical issues. Some of these you may have flagged earlier, some will have emerged in your analysis using the various perspectives.  There might be a clash between perspectives (providing different advice), or a clash within them (there might be a clash of duties, for instance). In other words, what makes the scenario an ETHICALLY difficult situation? What’s the problem or dilemma? This is more than a summary. Instead, your analysis should be diagnosing the ethical difficulty.
5. Evaluate the reasons and insights provided by the various perspectives. How relevant is each perspective to your scenario? You might argue that not every perspective is equally helpful or germane. This involves going a step beyond APPLYING the perspectives. In this step you ‘weigh up’ what each perspective offers. Which produces the most compelling or persuasive reasons?
6. Decide what to do. Your decision may involve a few different actions (e.g. negotiating with more than one person, doing more than one thing). You need to describe what you are going to do and justify it. This justification will involve a final comparison of the contribution of each perspective, a critical evaluation of the considerations and reasons each provides.  Which perspectives provide the most direct support for your decision, and which suggest otherwise? Explain why you have decided as you have. You should try to be even-handed here.  Not every reason will point the same way. Your final decision should be defended as the one best supported by reasons, all things considered.

Brief of Assessment Requirements 

Purpose: Produce an essay-style analysis of a chosen scenario using four ethical perspectives, diagnose the core ethical difficulty, evaluate the perspectives, and defend a reasoned decision.

Essential elements to cover

• Short, clear introduction (topic, aim, structure) — treat the piece as an essay.

• Scenario introduction: outline only the facts needed to frame the ethical problem (do not retell the whole story).

• Apply each of the four ethical perspectives (brief definition + cited sources, then application to the scenario).

• Identify the major ethical issues/dilemma(s) revealed by the analysis.

• Evaluate the strengths and limits of each perspective for this scenario (weigh them).

• Decide on a course of action: describe what you will do and justify it by comparing contributions of the perspectives.

• Short conclusion summarising the decision and the rationale.

• Appropriate references for definitions/claims; concise, no repetition.

Key pointers the assessment marker expects

• Clarity and economy (brief, avoid repetition).

• Evidence of application (not just theory): each perspective must be used on relevant aspects.

• Critical evaluation, not only description — show why some perspectives matter more.

• A defended decision based on the weighted analysis.

• Correct referencing and academic tone.

• Logical structure: introduction → body (4 perspectives + issues + evaluation) → decision → conclusion.

How the Academic Mentor Approached Guiding the Student — Step-by-Step

1. Orientation & Planning (Kick-off meeting)

   • The mentor explained the assessment objectives and marking criteria.

   • Agreed on a realistic scope (one scenario) and a plan with milestones (research, draft, review).

   • Advised on the expected essay structure (intro, four perspective sections, issues, evaluation, decision, conclusion).

2. Selecting and Framing the Scenario

   • Mentor coached the student to pick the version of the scenario that clearly illustrates ethical tension.

   • Taught how to summarise only salient facts (why some details matter and others don’t).

   • Student produced a 2–3 sentence scenario summary that frames the problem without narrative waste.

3. Research & Sources

   • Mentor directed the student to course Learning Guides and one or two trustworthy secondary sources for each perspective.

   • Emphasised short, properly formatted citations for definitions and claims.

   • Student collected 4–6 key references and annotated why each was useful.

4. Explaining & Applying Each Ethical Perspective

   • Mentor modelled the approach: for each perspective — (a) define it in own words with a citation, (b) list the aspects of the scenario it highlights, (c) state the likely moral recommendation(s).

   • The four perspectives used (common choice): Consequentialism (utilitarianism), Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Care Ethics.

   • For each, the mentor asked the student to write a short subsection: definition (1–2 lines), application (3–5 lines), implication for actors (2–3 lines).

5. Identifying Major Ethical Issues

   • Mentor prompted the student to extract points where perspectives conflict (e.g., greatest good vs. a duty-based prohibition).

   • Student produced a diagnostic paragraph that synthesised the perspectival tensions into 2–4 core issues.

6. Evaluation (Weighing the Perspectives)

   • Mentor taught a simple weighing method: relevance to scenario, stakeholder impact, practical feasibility, and robustness of reasons.

   • Student created a short comparative paragraph for each perspective explaining its value and limits.

7. Decision & Justification

   • Mentor required the student to produce a decision that: (a) addresses the main ethical issues, (b) is supported by the perspectives most aligned with the scenario, and (c) acknowledges countervailing reasons.

   • Student wrote the decision and then added a concise paragraph linking which perspectives most strongly support it and why.

8. Conclusion & Presentation

   • Mentor checked that the conclusion restated the decision and the main reasons (without repeating analysis).

   • Final tasks: check referencing, word economy, remove repetition, and ensure academic tone.

9. Review & Feedback Cycle

   • Mentor gave targeted feedback on clarity, evidence use, and balance between description and evaluation.

   • Student revised accordingly and produced the final submission.

How the Outcome was Achieved (Brief)

• Structure used: Introduction → short scenario statement → four perspective sections (each: definition + application) → identified issues → comparative evaluation → defended decision → conclusion → references.

• Writing method: iterative — draft each perspective section, then write the issues and evaluation based on those drafts, then draft decision and conclusion.

• Quality checks applied: relevance trimming (no retelling), evidence checks (each key claim had at least one citation), and an emphasis on balanced reasoning (acknowledging opposing considerations).

Learning objectives covered

• Identification of ethical problems: isolating which facts create moral tension.

• Application of ethical theories: translating abstract perspectives into scenario-specific advice.

• Critical evaluation: comparing the explanatory and practical power of multiple perspectives.

• Reasoned decision-making: constructing and defending a justified course of action.

• Academic skills: concise academic writing, referencing sources, structuring an essay.

• Reflective awareness: recognising limitations of chosen approaches and acknowledging counterarguments.

Get Expert Guidance for Your Assignment Success

Looking to understand how to approach this topic effectively? You can download the sample solution below to see how professional writers structure and present high-quality academic work. This sample is designed purely for reference and learning purposes helping you grasp key concepts, formatting styles, and academic writing techniques.

However, please remember that submitting this sample as your own work may lead to plagiarism penalties. Every university has strict academic integrity policies, so it’s important to use the sample responsibly.

If you want a 100% original, plagiarism-free, and custom-written solution tailored to your specific requirements, our team of professional academic writers is here to help. We deliver customised assignments, essays, and reports that meet your deadline, match your writing style, and follow your institution’s guidelines perfectly.

Why choose our custom solutions?

• Written from scratch by qualified academic experts

• Guaranteed plagiarism-free content with proper referencing

• Delivered on time with unlimited revision support

• Confidential, reliable, and student-friendly services

Use this opportunity to learn and excel not to risk your grades.

Download Sample Solution            Order Fresh Assignment