The Ayala Case

For this assignment carefully read “Case 2: The Ayala Case” from Burnor & Raley Ch.8, p. 171.

2. Write 700 words (2.5 double-spaced pages) on the following question:

Was it morally permissible for the Ayala’s to conceive a child in the hope that it would be a compatible donor that could save their other child’s life?

You must use Kant’s moral theory somewhere in your answer. Explain Kant’s moral principle. Choose either the Principle of Ends or the Principle of Universal Law and not both. Explain how it applies to this case. You may use it in the argument for your position (item B below) or as a possible objection to your case (item C below).

Your response should include:

A. A brief summary of the main problem and relevant background facts and a clear statement of your position on the case. (see item number 1 in Guidelines for a Case Study Analysis in Burnor & Raley, pp. xxiii)

B. An argument in support of your position on the case, which includes a moral principle. (see items 3 & 4 in Guidelines for a Case Study Analysis in Burnor & Raley, pp. xxiii-xxiv)

C. Describe and respond to at least one possible objection to your position. (see item 5 in Guidelines for a Case Study Analysis in Burnor & Raley, pp. xxiv)

Use in-text citations for any quotations you use. A work’s cited page will not be necessary.

Rubric
Case Analysis Theory Application Rubric
Case Analysis Theory Application Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Clear and Systematic Presentation

5.0 to >3.0 pts
Extremely clear and systematic.

3.0 to >2.0 pts
Clear and systematic

2.0 to >0.0 pts
Tries to be clear and systematic, but is somewhat vague or unclear.

0.0 pts
Completely unclear

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Application of Moral Theory

15.0 to >11.0 pts
Accurately describes the moral theory and applies it to the case.
Uses a moral principle in constructing a clear argument.

11.0 to >7.0 pts
Applies the moral theory to the case.
Uses a moral principle, but is unclear in it’s application to the case or has minor problems of accuracy in describing the case.

7.0 to >3.0 pts
Tries to apply the moral theory to the case, but shows some confusion.

3.0 to >0 pts
Failed to apply the theory to the case.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Consideration of Differing Viewpoint

5.0 to >3.0 pts
Demonstrated clear awareness and consideration of differing viewpoints.
Clearly identifies a differing viewpoint and offers a reason to reject it.

3.0 to >2.0 pts
Demonstrated an awareness and consideration of differing viewpoints.

2.0 to >0.0 pts
Tries to show awareness and consideration fo differing viewpoints.
May not have clearly answered possible differences of viewpoint or shown awareness of arguments in favor of differing viewpoints.

0.0 pts
Did not consider differing viewpoints.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Professionalism (Spelling, Grammar, and Citations)

5.0 to >3.0 pts
Reflects careful editing, includes citations and work’s cited page.

3.0 to >2.0 pts
A few errors present, but they do not distract

2.0 to >0.0 pts
Several errors distract at times and/or missing citations.

0.0 pts
Errors throughout. Missing citations and work’s cite page.

5.0 pts

Total Points: 30.0
Previous
Next