Position Paper Assignment
Complete
all of the steps below. Be sure to separate each step (indicating clearly which
step you are addressing in each section). Be sure as well to address all of the
“prompts” provided. Suggested length: 4-6 (double-spaced,
typed) pages.
Step
One: Select one of the communication
ethics case studies explored this semester. As concisely as possible, provide a
narrative detailing the relevant facts
in the case. Be sure the narrative is comprehensive,
including enough detail to provide readers a clear understanding of the case
(carefully avoiding inclusion of extraneous information). Be sure as well that
the narrative is fair and representative of the diverse “voices”
at the heart of the case.
Step Two: Provide
a concise overview of the communication
ethics challenge at the heart of the case. In your overview, be sure to identify the decision maker(s) clearly.
Be sure as well to provide thoughtful overviews of the competing values and conflicting obligations confronting the decision
maker(s) at the heart of the case.
Step
Three: Provide brief overviews of communicative
choices available to the decision maker(s).
Be sure to include all viable options
meeting the criteria for reasonableness
and responsiveness outlined throughout the semester and highlighted in
Chapter 10 of the course text.
Step
Four: Identify all key values
and beliefs shared by all members of the deliberative community. Be sure to
include only directly relevant values,
assumptions, and related beliefs of importance to deliberations in the
case.
Step
Five: Provide a brief overview of your perspective on how best to address the communication ethics
challenge at the heart of this case. Based on all that we have learned this
semester regarding communication ethics, which
of the options outlined in Step Three should
the decision maker(s) adopt? Why?
Briefly summarize your reasons for this assessment. Be sure to include the primary (most compelling) grounds available in
support of your proposal.
Step Six: Identify potentially contested claims appearing in your response to Step
Five.
Step Seven: On what grounds might a thoughtful and reasonable post-conventional
deliberative partner disagree with
your perspective regarding the most
ethically justified available option? Concisely summarize the partner’s
alternative proposal. Be sure to include
the most compelling support available for this alternative point of view.