Final Blog: Chapter 12

FINAL BLOG (Chapter 12)

(1) Question:

For a person to be truly happy, what conditions must be met? Which condition is the most important to achieve happiness? How is the relationship between ethics and happiness best described.

(2) Conceptual Clarifications:

The question of happiness deals with the concept of “Good”. As we learned from the Ruggiero text (pg 143), St. Augustine used Plato’s philosophy as the basis for Christian ethics. He believed that we lead a life of reason to achieve happiness here on earth but our faith is what leads us to salvation which gives us eternal happiness.

(3) Answer:

It seems that every one of us has our own idea of what happiness is and what it means. There are a few quotes that give insight to how some of our more famous people felt about the matter.
“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony” – Mahatma Gandhi
“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose” - Helen Keller
“There is a wonderful mythical law of nature that the three things we crave most in life – happiness, freedom, and peace of mind – are always attained by giving them to someone else” - Peyton Conway March
“Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be” - Abraham Lincoln
I think that all of these quotes are relevant to the ethical analysis of happiness. I believe that Aristotle was on the mark with his concept of natural ethics and theological ethics. To be happy in this life we must live according to our moral principles and tend to our obligations to our family, friends, employer, and country. Even though we have established that religion cannot be the basis for our ethical analysis, it seems that all of the predominant religions of our time involve an after-life and criteria that we must meet to attain eternal happiness.

(4) Example:

Happiness seems to change with our age. A baby with a full stomach being held in its mother’s loving arms is most probably truly happy (but that does not involve much ethical behavior from the baby). Having seen many elderly people on the brink of death, it seems that their happiness is derived from the satisfaction of knowing that their loved ones are okay, their finances are in order and they are at peace with God. The best example of happiness that I can give would have to me my own. I was raised in a Christian home with traditional moral values that we find in the Bible. As an adult I feel that I am responsible for the care and well being of my family, to provide for them to the best of my ability. I feel strongly about meeting my obligations at work, to my friends and my country. I also know that I need to constantly tend to my spiritual relationship to be truly at ease. When these conditions are met, my family is taken care of, my responsibilities fulfilled and I am at peace with God, then I am happy. I don’t need all the money and things you see on television to make me happy. I can think of no happier time in my life than piling up on my bed with my wife and son and daughter and just being together, talking and laughing and sharing with each other. The relationship that I have with God is my reassurance that I will be happy in my eternal life.

(5) Word Count:

My word count for sections 2, 3 and 4 is: 556.

(6) Image:

(7) References:

Ruggiero. (2008). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. McGraw Hill.

Ethical decision making framework: IDEALS

Ethical Decision Making Framework
FOCUS: IDEALS
NAME: Paul Anderson
STEP ONE: THE DETAILS OF THE CASE

(1) Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 1 - 28 (pages 114 - 117). Indicate which inquiry you chose, and then briefly explain it in your own words:

I choose inquiry #20 about the man who was elected president of a small country and then became a tyrannical dictator, but was eventually put to death by a small group of the people he had oppressed.

(2) Stakeholders:

The president, his army and secret police, the government and the people of the country all have a stake in the situation. The group that assassinates him are considered to be people of the country.

(3) Are the details given sufficient? Why or why not?

The details are sufficient to give insight into the situation, establish the ideals in conflict and make a decision about the actions taken.

(4) What additional questions does this inquiry raise?

Who did the small group of assassins represent and was their motive to make the country a better place to live or were they just usurping his power to replace his injustices with their own?

STEP TWO: THE RELEVANT CRITERIA

1. Obligations (aka "duties"):
The obligations of citizenship would definitely apply in this situation as well as professional obligations.

2. Moral Ideals (aka "virtues"):

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Prudence:
Prudence applies here as it is the exact opposite of rashness and impulsiveness which may apply to a small group of people assassinating another small group of people.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Justice:
Did the assassination of the president and his accomplices represent justice? * Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Temperance:Probably not applicable in this situation.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Courage:
Courage definitely applies here. Possibly to the president having the courage to do what he did also to the people who assassinated him having the courage to risk their life to accomplish their goals.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Loving Kindness:
Probably not applicable here.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Honesty:
Honesty was definitely violated here by the president. It sounds as if he became president under one pretense and then revealed his true objectives.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Compassion:
I believe that the assassins acted with compassion for their fellow citizens.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Forgiveness:
Not applicable here!

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Repentance:
Not applicable here!

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Reparation:
Not applicable here.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Gratitude:
Not applicable here unless the people of the country show gratitude to the assassins for removing the dictator from their country.

* Cardinal Ideal/Virtue of Beneficence:
Not applicable here.

* Conflicting ideals--consider the relative importance of each; determine which ideal represents the greater good (or the lesser evil). See pages 110-11 for clarification.

Murdering the president and his men would present a conflict in ideals, but I believe the assassins considered it the lesser of two evils given that the president was murdering seemingly innocent people.

3. Consequences (aka "outcomes" or "results"): Optional this week

STEP THREE: POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION

Alternative #1:
Seek to remove the president from office through traditional political channels.

Alternative #2:
Seek help from international sources such as the United Nations or other countries sympathetic to the preservation of human rights.

STEP FOUR: THE MOST ETHICAL ACTION

Examine the action taken or proposed and decide whether it achieves the greater good (the most widespread "respect for persons")...if it does not, choose one that will, from your alternatives. Where the choice of actions is such that no good can be achieved, choose the action that will result in the lesser evil.

I believe that assassination of the president was justified. In the case of the Arab guerrillas holding the Israeli Olympic athletes hostage, the authorities had to kill the guerrillas to prevent the murder of more innocent people. This case is similar in that the president was executing the people of his country, so his assassination prevented the further loss of innocent lives.

SELF EVALUATION

1. In your own words, describe something new that you learned from this week’s assigned reading material and guidance.
The explanation of courage was meaningful to me. I guess I never really thought of it as having 3 dimensions. I was moved by the story about the little girl on the bus who befriended the other boy. I would not have thought about it being a conflict of ideals – I now realize that it was not exactly honest, but it was certainly the right thing to do.

2. In your own words, describe in detail some insight you gained, about the material, from one of your classmates' blogs this week.
I cannot honestly answer this question because I only read the instructor blog.

3. Did you post a thoroughly completed post to your blog on time this week?
Yes, except for the question above.

4. Did you ALSO print this out, so you can bring it to class and earn total points?
Yes.

5. Of 25 points total, my efforts this week deserve:

24. I suppose that reading the other students’ blogs is helpful but I did not feel that it was critical for my grade. We all have to be responsible and budget our time as we see fit. I work an average of 48 hours a week and am taking 14 credit hours for the second semester in a row, so anything above the required assignments usually doesn’t make into my schedule. I do read the assignments and try to turn in work that reflects that.

Blog assignment #9

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART ONE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we're going to return for a moment to Chapter 7, to the section that discusses errors that are common in the analysis of moral issues (p. 89). Breifly explain each of the following errors in your own words, as if you were explaining the concept to a friend who had never taken this class (consider who, what, when, where, why, how, when); and then give an example of each one, preferably from your own past experience.

Unwarranted Assumptions: To avoid making unwarranted assumptions when we are trying to make a decision on the morality of a given action or decision, we need to be careful to pay attention to only the facts that are given and not assume anything unless it is specifically stated.

Unwarranted assumptions occur frequently in hospital settings. In many instances you may assume that the age/gender of the patient and their visitors are an indication of their relationship. For example you walk into a room and see an elderly man and a young, caring female - you may logically assume the elderly male patient is being visited by his daughter. Or, you see a young male patient with an older female visitor - you may assume that the mother has brought her son to the hospital. I recently walked into a room with an older (late 50's) woman and a young man in his early twenties. (mother/son??) While I was starting an IV on the lady, she began a very descriptive dialogue about her sexual preferences and things that she found very pleasurable in bed. Moral decision on my part: inappropriate discussion for mother and son, especially in the presence of a stranger. Shortly thereafter, she asked him for a kiss, which was deep and wet and sent a wave of nausea over me. I left the room disgusted, only to find out later that the young man was really her "significant other".

Oversimplification: When we examine the morality of a situation we need to be sure to look at the whole picture to make sure that all the relevant facts are considered and we avoid oversimplification.

Recently we had an issue of a pharmacy technician dispensing a medication without a written order from the doctor and without the approval of a pharmacist. In its simplest form this could be grounds for ending the technician's career. Under closer review, it became clear that the technician made the right choice by supporting the E.R. staff and providing the necessary medication to save a patient's life even though there was no written order and there was no pharmacist available.

Hasty Conclusions: When I think of "hasty conclusions" I think of the old phrases "guilty until proven innocent" and "perception is reality". We need to avoid making decisions before we examine the situation fully and make sure that we see things clearly and in the right perspective.

One of the most frequent examples of "hasty conclusions" that I can think of is the conclusion that a man and a woman are having an affair if they work together and get along well. I was the victim of this situation at work. I worked with a woman about the same age as I was and with several things in common to talk about and also a common work ethic. It was several months later that I found out that some of the other employees had come to the conclusion that we were having an affair and that I was the father of her college-age daughter, even though I had known her less than a year and had no contact with her whatsoever outside of our professional relationship.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Briefly answer the following "chapter opening" questions, in your own words, based on what you learned by studying chapter eight:
1. What do we do in situations where there is more than a single obligation?

More than one obligation can lead to some difficult decisions. It is our responsibility to weigh the benefits and consequences of each alternative and then act upon the one that we determine to be the best choice. It is usually best to take the "moral high ground", and act according to accepted values instead of emotions.

2. How can we reconcile conflicting obligations?

Conflicting obligations need to reviewed and decided upon objectively. You need to examine the obligations fully and in a clear light to determine which one would be the best course of action. We should go with the one that does the most good even if it is not always the easiest choice..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In a nutshell, what is the most important thing, for you, that you learned from this assignment?

It reinforced many of the ideas and values that I have acquired after many years in the workforce dealing with people from all walks of life and with values that often seem foreign to me. It made me think about the way that I conduct my life and deal with people on a daily basis, whether that be at home with my family or at work with people from a multitude of cultures.

2. How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?

I think I will be able to reflect on these chapters when I find myself in a situation that calls for tough decision-making. I think that I will be more able to sort out my obligations and make the right choices, not just the easiest way out.

3. What grade do you believe your efforts regarding this assignment deserve? Justify your answer.

It takes me a long time to read and complete these assignments and find applications in my life that fit the relevant chapters. I try to answer the questions to the best of my ability and put my feelings into the correct format. I believe my work is deserving of the possible 25 points listed on the syllabus.

BLOG #6. Comparing Cultures

ASSIGNMENTThe two questions below are from the title section, at the beginning of chapter five, in the Ruggiero text. Please answer them in prose (written out) form, in your own words, to the best of your ability. Use what you learned from the assigned readings to construct your answers. You must provide at least one full paragraph each, and an example, and then you must put your answer in equation form. I will model both the equation form and the conclusion this time (you choose which conclusion suits your position); you must fill in the premises (as many as you consider enough).Try to base your conclusion on at least one premise that consists of a moral principle, as in “X should always Y” or “X is good” or “We ought to X”. In other words, “X should always Y” is the symbolic form of a statement like, “We should always tell the truth”. Or the claim, “We should always respect other cultures”. And so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE
--------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION #1: If an action that is praised in one culture may be condemned in another, would it be correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in?



ANSWER 1A: No, I think that would be a simplistic way to approach the problem of morals and cultural norms. This issue is crucial in our search for a standard ethical judgment. When an action is praised in one culture and condemned in another, it should send up a red flag for anyone who notices the difference. There are some things that just don't hold up to scrutiny even after many years have passed and the circumstances of the situation are revealed.

P: Human life should always be respected.

P: The sick and elderly deserve fair treatment.

P: Women deserve the same respect as men.

C: Therefore, it is not correct to say that all moral values are relative to the culture they are found in.
------------------------------


QUESTION #2: Isn’t it a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures or to claim that one culture is better than another?



ANSWER 2A: No, it is not a mark of ignorance to pass judgment on another culture. The notion of multicultural acceptance is a flawed theory. At some point you have to take a stand - either for or against - you can't ride the fence on every issue. Sure, there are some things that are trivial and not deserving of a lot of time and attention, but there are other issues that are just plain wrong no matter how you look at them. I still take offense when the issue of slavery is brought up and the first thing that people thing of is the ignorant southerners keeping black slaves on the plantations. That was wrong, very wrong, but it was just as wrong several thousand years ago (Egypt, Greece, Europe...) as it is today, by all countries involved. I believe that all of our cultures share some similarity in their values and we should examine how most of the cultures behave in order to come up with a standard that is more acceptable by all.

P: Passing judgment without reviewing the facts is ignorant.

P: Passing judgment is right and prudent to save innocent lives.

C: Therefore, it is not a mark of ignorance to pass judgments on other cultures.

--------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO
--------------------------------------------------------------

See page 63 in our text. Choose one inquiry, from inquiries 3 – 11. Briefly describe the inquiry as the first part of your answer, so your readers know which one you chose. Discuss whether or not the action / decision in each case is ethical. And then, put your argument in equation form. Try to include an ethical principle as one of your premises, as modeled below...

Mutilation as a form of punishment for some crimes. Tough call, but I think it works. I believe there should be real consequences for crimes. Think about it, in our society we have seen the judicial system deteriorate right before our eyes. There has become a sort of tier system, the laws that the poor people are dealt with, the standard laws for the "middle class" and the lack of law or consequence for the rich. Think about politicians and prostitutes, millionaire athletes and murder, billionaires stealing. Do you think that Mr. Madoff who stole billions and robbed people of their life's savings would have acted differently knowing his hands may be cut off? Definitely not a sentence to be taken lightly. I believe we would have to come up with some pretty strict rules regarding the severity of the offense, but I think that if people were really afraid of the consequences they would realize they are not above the law and would think long and hard about committing the crime.

Argument #1:

Arguable issue: Whether mutilation is an appropriate form of punishment for some crimes.

P: Let the punishment fit the crime.

P: Fear is a great deterrent.

C: Mutilation as a form of punishment may be a viable alternative to reduce crime.

BLOG #5. Conscience in Ethics

For many years I gave this advice to friends and people that I worked with: "let your conscience be your guide". In my mind, I was telling them to do the right thing, or maybe better stated was don't do anything that you would regret the next day. Until now, I didn't give much thought that each of us is so entirely different. I have been involved with medicine for most of my adult life and have had many occasion to discuss the moral dilemnas that we face on almost every shift that we work. It was with great interest that I read an article by Dr. Rick Bayer discussing the modern dilemnas that physicians face when dealing with terminal sedation, birth control for teenagers without parental consent and providing abortion for failed contraception. The fact that terminal sedation is legal in Oregon poses an even tougher moral/conscience dilemna. Apparently, a physician in Oregon who can't in good conscience perform terminal sedation is supposed to refer his patient to another physician who will perform the procedure. The doctor is also supposed to educate the patient on the procedures, alternatives and risks. Interestingly in Dr. Bayer's article he cites a poll of 1,000 doctors but his only negative reviews are about the male Christian doctors who go to church at least twice a month. This is a very troublesome and difficult topic for anyone whose conscience is not in alignment with Oregon state law. I can think of a myriad of situations where these decisions would put your conscience to the ultimate test. I strongly believe that the physician should put the patient's care foremost, but he should not be forced to perform procedures that his conscience tells him not to do. For more details, please refer to Dr. Bayer's article at www.alternativesmagazine.com/43/bayer.html


Arguable issue: Whether or not this post deserves 25 points towards my grade.
Conclusion: This post deserves 25 points toward my grade.
Premise: This post definitely deserves 25 points towards my grade because:

1) It is a thought provoking topic which required a good bit of reading and research.
2) It follows the given directions.
3) It shows that our journey so far has not been in vain.

BLOG #4 - Ethics hybrid south campus

1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what Moral Relativism is—what do people who hold this view believe?

Moral Relativism is difficult to define but to me it is the belief that "moral" is defined by the person, that whatever the person believes is ethical or true defines their morals. My personal experience with this issue has shown me that the people who buy into this belief see everything as a "gray area", that there really is no black or white, right or wrong.

2. Paragraph & Link: Find one online resources related to this topic—not Wikipedia. Explain in a brief paragraph what you learned about this topic through the resource you found; include the link at the end of your paragraph.

I read a few articles on the internet about moral relativism, most of which gave fair and objective remarks. I think the one I felt most in tune with was written by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.. His assertion was that the moral relativists in the real world are not "relative" at all, but were more aptly defined as "absolutists". One of the examples that he used was that of the feminist movement. He pointed out that true relativists would not be bothered by the way the Taliban treat their women, or by child-adult sexual activity, or rape. But in reality the feminist movement would certainly take a stand (absolutism -not relativism) and demand that Taliban women be treated humanely, that child-adult sexual activity is wrong and should be punished and that rape is a crime whether the perpetrator considers it "making love" or not. His conclusive argument is that moral relativism is a myth and that there has to be at least one rational, objective standard by which we can judge human actions as right or wrong. To read more on the topic, please go to: www.radicalacademy.com/ethicsmyth.htm

3. Argument: Compose a short argument, in “argument elements” form. I’ll provide the arguable issue; you provide the rest. Make sure each of your premises is a complete sentence, and that your argument doesn't break any of the rules listed in the first chapter of the Rulebook for Arguments:

Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not Moral Relativism is a good view to hold.

Conclusion: Moral relativism is not a good view to hold.

Premises:

(1) There has to be a defining line between right and wrong.

(2) The most vile act that you can think of would be acceptable to a moral relativist.

(3) If you honestly believe in moral relativism, you would have no conscience.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART TWO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what a Majority View is. Cite your sources.

When Hillary Clinton is raising the children in her "village" and all the adults in the village decide that it would be okay for married people to have sex with the servants, then they have established a "majority view". If that same group of villagers was unsure what exactly "sex" was and they decided that fellatio was actually sex, then it is so, because the majority of the villagers agree. Some people may not agree with that definition, but they would not be in the majority, so their opinion would be considered wrong. According to Dr. Gregory Berns, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, GA, the two most common ideas to support this theory is that people look to the group because they’re unsure of what to do, and that people go along with the norm because they are afraid of being different.


2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not the Majority View is a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.

Conclusion: The Majority View is not a reliable for ethical decision-making.

Premises:

(1) History has proven that the majority view is not always right.

(2) Not all people in the group really know what is going on or have all the information they need to make an informed decision.

(3) Majority view is sometimes driven by emotion, and not objective data.



The Role of Feelings

1. Paragraph: Explain in your own words what feelings are. Cite your sources.

The role of feelings begins with the premise that we all begin basically as "good" people and that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to do as long as it feels "good" and right to the individual. The psychologist Carl Rogers said that we should accept and affirm the feelings of others without reservation or evaluation. If we carry this out in reality we would all do whatever we want to do, whether it be evil or noble and we would eventually end up in total chaos.

2. Arguable Issue: The arguable issue is whether or not our feelings are a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.

Conclusion: Our feelings are not a reliable basis for ethical decision-making.


Premises:

(1) Personal feelings may give no regard for the feelings of others

(2) Decision-making should be based on objective standards, not emotions.

(3) Personal feelings do not necessarily agree with accepted morals.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT PART THREE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to express yourself in your own words is essential in this class. Did you put everything in your own words this time?

I always try not to plagiarize, though sometimes the thought is so well written by the author that it is very difficult to express the same meaning when paraphrased. This assignment is written in my own words.

What was easiest / hardest about this assignment?

A lot of this seems related to me, and I sometimes have trouble keeping the ideas straight in my head. Like moral relativism and the role of feelings both seem like a total disregard for what I consider to be acceptable values. I think some of these ideas conflict with my opinions and remaining objective when I put things in my own words is often a challenge.

How will you apply what you learned through this assignment to your everyday life?

I didn't think the lesson on arguments would be as meaningful to me as it has been. I have been put in (or put myself in) positions where I had to defend my position in the past and it has not always turned out the way I wished it would have. I feel like am better prepared to argue now.


How well do you think you did on this assignment? Explain
I think my assignments get better each time. I will admit tht I have taken classes before and not completed the assigned reading. I have read the material this time and feel like I have learned from it.

Week #3 Ethics Blog Assignment

1. Explain what “to give an argument” means in this book.

The author points out that an argument does not have to be a verbal fist fight like many people think. A good argument is not pointless and does not have to be unpleasant. He described an argument as taking a position in a matter and supporting that position with relevant ideas and facts. He establishes the fact that a good argument must be supported by sound reasoning which makes it easier to defend.

2. What are the reasons Weston gives in support of his claim, “arguments are essential”?

Arguments support your conclusion with evidence. They also give reasons for your conclusions. Arguments should not be viewed as a fight, they serve a valid purpose by making people understand your view.

3. Explain why many students tend to “write an essay, but not an argument”.

The author makes the point that his book is meant to be a rulebook for teachers and students. It is intended to be brief and concise, and easily referenced when critiquing another person’s work. He believes that many students have not written good arguments because they did not understand the assignment and they had not been given the proper tools and formatting techniques that he provides in his book.

4. Construct two short arguments (one "for" and one "against") as modeled in the Week 3 Assignment section in Blackboard. Put each one in "elements form".

ARGUMENT FOR PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should have the same right to privacy as all the rest of our citizens have.
Premises: Political figures should have the right to privacy because:

1) It was the person that we elected, not their entire family.
2) The political figure has no control over what his family members do any more that you or I have.
3) Not everything needs to be public knowledge – if it has no bearing on their job performance then it should remain private.


ARGUMENT AGAINST PRIVACY FOR POLITICAL FIGURES
Arguable issue: Whether or not political figures have the right to privacy that the rest of the public has.
Conclusion: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office.
Premises: Political figures should not have private lives once elected to office because :

1) It is always fun to read and hear about the “dirty laundry” of political figures.
2) We really need to know “what goes on behind closed doors”.
3) How they run their personal lives is indicative of how they will do their jobs.

5. Review the seven rules in chapter one. Briefly discuss how your argument demonstrates that each rule was applied, in the construction of your arguments above.

1) Distinguish premise and conclusion. There is no doubt that my premise and conclusions were understandable to anyone who can read.
2) Present your ideas in a natural order. I followed the order given in the example and believe it follows a natural order.
3) Start from reliable premise. My premise makes for a good argument.
4) Be concrete and concise. I was careful to keep my sentences short and as much alike as possible to avoid straying from the point.
5) Avoid loaded language. I only used words that were simple and commonly used.
6) Use consistent terms. I went back and corrected my conclusion and premise to make them more consistent like the ones in the example.
7) Stick to one meaning for each term. I believe that I did that by being specific in my premise and conclusion.

6. Review the three rules in the appendix named, “Definitions”. In your own words, discuss how you took these rules into consideration as you constructed your arguments.

I used clear but common language that I thought everyone could understand and would have no doubt what I was talking about. I did not use words that could have more than one meaning to people.

7. Good posts demonstrate:

• Sincere reflection, effort, and analysis
• Answers that are substantial (at least one large paragraph each)
• Consistent mention, citation, and integration of the assigned readings (explained in YOUR own words, though)
• Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
• Correctly titled posts!
How many points do you honestly feel your post this week deserves? Justify your answer.
I think that the volume of work for this post is definitely worthy of the 25 points allowed. I feel that the assignment was thoroughly reviewed and completed as directed.