Unformatted Attachment Preview
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
For each graded forum, a student may earn up to 20 points, based on the following criteria, for her/his discussion
contributions. At minimum, students are required to respond to the initial discussion prompt and to reply to two
other students’ posts. Please keep in mind that posting more than 3 times may be an effective strategy to boost
one’s score since an extra substantive post or two will help to offset any minor deficiencies.
Post
Initial Post
(12 pts)
First peer reply
(4 pts)
Second peer reply
(4 pts)
Criteria for full credit
• Explicitly and accurately uses the
relevant course concepts and the
normative ethical theories
• Incorporates and makes
conceptual connections with the
assigned course materials such as
the relevant assigned textbook
readings and lectures
• Evidence of outside research from
reliable sources that adds novel
information, examples, or insights;
sources are properly cited
• Addresses all aspects of the
discussion prompt and post is at
least 600 words long
• Avoids informal fallacies and other
errors in reasoning; arguments
have clear premises and
conclusion
• Completed by due date stated in
course calendar
• Few to no grammar/spelling errors
• Post is well organized and easy to
follow
Criteria for deductions points are deducted based on the
below stated values
• Fails to accurately and explicitly
use the relevant course concepts
and normative ethical theories,
or uses them only superficially (2
pts)
• Fails to make connections with or
to use effectively the course
materials such as the assigned
textbook readings and lectures
from the related lesson (2 pts)
• Fails to draw from reliable, novel
outside research, uses it only
superficially, or fails to properly
cite it (2 pts)
• Word counts not met, or post is
not fully developed and
questions are missed (2 pts)
• Arguments are not entirely clear,
or errors in reasoning (1 pt)
• Initial post is late (1 pt)
• Grammar/spelling errors (1 pt)
• Responses are not clearly
numbered or post lacks a clear
organization structure (1 pt)
No Credit
(zero points)
• No post or
• Netiquette
violation or
• Academic
integrity
violation
• Response adds novel information
or insights, points out errors in
reasoning, offers a critical analysis
of the theories and evidence used,
or poses thought provoking
questions.
• At least 200 words long
• Posted on a different day than
initial post
• Post is well-organized and free
from grammatical errors
• Post is superficial, and does not
offer substantive, additional
information or critical analysis of
the related content (1 pt)
• Word counts not met (1 pt)
• Not posted on a different day
than initial post (1 pt)
• Weak arguments, organization,
or grammar/spelling errors (1 pt)
• No post or
• Netiquette
violation or
• Academic
integrity
violation
• Response adds novel information
or insights, points out errors in
reasoning, offers a critical analysis
of the theories and evidence used,
or poses thought provoking
questions.
• At least 200 words long
• Post is well-organized and free
from grammatical errors
• Reply responds to follow-up
questions, if applicable
• Post is superficial, and does not
offer substantive, additional
information or critical analysis of
the related content (1 pt)
• Word counts not met (1 pt)
• Weak arguments, organization,
or grammar/spelling errors (1 pt)
• Fails to respond to follow-up
questions from other
students/instructor, if applicable
(1 pt)
• No post or
• Netiquette
violation or
• Academic
integrity
violation
For centuries, philosophers have argued for the moral status of animals. This tradition started with Pythagoras, and continues with
modern day philosophers such as Peter Singer. Maintaining that nonhuman animals have moral status certainly motivates lifestyle
choices such as wearing leather or consuming meat, and while animal welfare concerns drive some people toward meat-free diets,
other people aim to reduce meat consumption due to health and environmental reasons. For instance, meat consumption has
been shown to contribute to certain diseases such as colorectal cancer. It also has a larger environmental footprint. In fact, in 2006,
the U.N. put out a report on livestock's environmental footprint that found that livestock production was a major contributing factor
in climate change, air pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity., and land degradation. As the evidence mounts, it is not
surprising that some individuals are making an effort to reduce their meat consumption, but now an international company is
taking a stand.
First, please read this article: Memo from the Boss
Then, answer the following questions, and number your responses accordingly.
1. Do you support WeWork's policy regarding serving and reimbursing meals containing meat? Use at least one ethical theory
to justify your response. In doing so, aim to show that you understand McKelvey's moral argument and the moral tradition of
your chosen theory.
2. What responsibilities, if any, do businesses have to protect the environment? Please use this week's assigned textbook
readings to justify your response.
3. Regardless of your position in 3, businesses can take action to mitigate environmental damages and their carbon footprints.
Identify one other action that businesses could take to mitigate climate change, and explain its potential impact. Use outside
research to support your position.
4. What do you think is the best way to reduce your own carbon footprint? Explain, and use at least one example.