HOW TO DO CASE EVALUATIONS

HOW TO DO CASE EVALUATIONS

CASE EVALUATIONS

Work through the following four steps.  Each step may need to be revised in light of the other steps; that is, after working through it once, you will probably need to revise the earlier parts.  The outline headings and subheadings are to be included in your paper exactly as they are below.  If you are using a computer, you can delete everything except the headings and subheadings.  The title above is the name of the case, and the author is you, not me.

 

1. FACTS

 

1. Description of the Case

 

If you are given the case or get it from a printed source, insert it here by cut-and-paste (or type out the case).  Or you can simply attach it by writing “Case is attached.”  As much as possible, the case description should include all morally relevant facts–scientific, sociological, psychological, medical, personal, etc.  However, usually more information will be needed.

 

1. Relevant Facts Omitted

 

If the case as described in (a) above omits morally relevant factual data, list and explain these in this section.  If needed, do research into current laws, customs, statistics,  therapies, etc.  Helpful sources that you may not be aware of are pubic libraries, the law library at the county courthouse, government employees (commonwealth attorneys, social workers, community nurses, professors, elected officials, etc.), social agencies like the Homeless Shelter, Pathways and the Gateway District Health Department, and businesses (especially those that serve the public, like environmental agencies, consultants, newspapers, hospitals, clinics, etc.).  Usually these people are delighted to help you; they are thrilled to know that someone is interested in and cares about their work.  Be polite.

Essentially what you are trying to do in this subsection of the paper is answer the question, What else do I need to know about this case?  Sometimes it helps to imagine the person(s) in the case are sitting in front of you, and then to ask yourself, “What would I ask him or her?”

 

1. Actions to Be Taken

 

Identify the person or persons responsible for making a decision in this case.  List the possible actions (choices) that can be taken by the various agents in the case.  Do all of these involve moral aspects?  All ideas are good ideas, including off-beat and unusual ones.  Often when problems are not solved, it is because no one thought of a new, good solution for everyone involved.

 

2. ISSUES

 

[NOTE:  The purposes for this section are:  1) to determine what moral issues are raised by the case, and 2) to provide data and insights to be used in Part 3 below.  The moral dilemmas should be apparent after analyzing the values, duties, and rights.  Each sub-section will have a list of about five items.  A brief explanation is OK but unnecessary, unless the item is atypical.]

 

1. Values

 

List the goods and bads–the moral values–including especially consequences, virtues, and vices that are raised by the case.  Try not to miss any truly important ones, but don’t worry about listing trivial ones.  Likely your list will have 5-10 items.  If any are unclear or ambiguous, you should explain them in a sentence or two.  To get you started, it might help you to examine the three theories of the good and the four major virtues (integrity, compassion, courage, honesty).

 

1. Duties

 

List the major four or five (or more) duties that are raised by the case.  Identify and explain unclear or ambiguous concepts and terms affecting the morality of the case.  W. D. Ross’ list of duties is good place to start: how many fit this case?  Kant’s versions of the categorical imperative?

 

1. Rights

 

List the major four or five rights that are raised by the case.  Identify and explain unclear or ambiguous concepts and terms affecting the morality of the case.  Since duties and rights are correlative, likely your list of duties and rights will be similar.

 

1. Moral Dilemmas (Including Moral Conflicts and Problems)

 

Based on the lists of values, duties, and rights (parts a, b, and c above), identify three or more moral dilemmas raised by the case.  Examine the lists for conflicts between values, duties, and rights (for example, between two values, two duties, two rights, a value and a duty, a right and a duty, and so on); and then list the dilemmas as “versus” (for example, the right to life vs. the right not to have children, death with dignity vs. sanctity of life, retributive justice vs. rehabilitation, duty to employer vs. duty to society/client, etc.).  Moral “issues” involve dilemmas (for example, “abortion” involves the right to life vs. the right not to have children, “euthanasia” involves death with dignity vs. sanctity of life, “punishment” involves retributive justice vs. rehabilitation, “whistleblowing” involves duty to employer vs. duty to society/client, etc.).

 

3. MORAL (THEORETICAL) APPEALS

 

Discuss the case from the point of view of the five theoretical appeals below.  Under each appeal, you will “role play” by pretending that you actually hold to that view.  You may want to include another theory as a sixth appeal (such as the Divine Command Theory), particularly if you think the other theory is correct, but you need to discuss at least all five of the appeals below.

 

1. Consequences

 

Discuss the likely outcomes, results, and consequences for each of the important actions (possible moral decisions).  Which value (what good) should be brought about?  Who will get it?  Who should get it?  Examine the values listed in Part 2 above.  Do a utility calculus, i.e., estimate the good and bad consequences.  What action(s) would a utilitarian probably take?  Evaluate arguments for and against this theory and action(s).

 

1. Rights and Duties

 

Discuss the rights and duties listed in Part 2.  Give particular attention to W. D. Ross’s list of prima facie duties and their correlate rights (non-injury, fidelity, beneficence, etc.).  Which ones are prima facie, and what is the actual, or higher, right or duty?  Give reasons.

Rights are correlates of duties (obligations).  Rights are waivable by the rights owner, not absolute (they can be overridden by other rights or moral appeals), and some are more basic or fundamental than others.  Important rights include:  not to be killed, non-injury, and to be aided against threats.

In your judgment, which one do you consider to be the higher right/duty (or actual one)?  Why?  What action(s) would probably result?  Consider reasons that might be given for and against this action(s).

 

1. Respect for Persons

 

Discuss the case according to the notion of respect for persons (Kant’s theory).  What action would result from respect?  Is anyone being used as a mere means?  Is freedom (autonomy) being respected?  Can the action be universalized?  Are the relevant persons competent?  Is the action inconsistent or irrational?  Examine the case for possible biases and for equality and impartiality.  Consider reasons for and against these actions.

 

1. Distributive Justice (Cost vs. Benefit)

 

In this appeal, the emphasis is on justice, i.e., on who deserves the good (or bad) and who deserves to pay for it, but not so much on consequences, which go under appeal “a” above. What are the basic needs at issue (food, shelter, clothing, health care)?  Who needs them?  Who merits the good?  What is fair?  Does the case involve discrimination that is not justifiable?  Biases? Partiality?  Inequality?

The basic concept is that the benefit should be greater than the cost.  But public and private aspects differ.  Generally, in public policies, cost should not exceed benefit, unless past injustices are being corrected (as in Affirmative Action).  However, in private matters, an individual can freely (and perhaps irrationally) pay whatever he or she wants (that is, cost can exceed benefit), as long as others are not harmed.

 

1. Virtues

 

Discuss the virtues that are relevant to the case.  What would a virtuous (good) person do?  In other words, what action would a person do when that person is characterized by integrity, compassion (love), courage, honesty, and impartiality (and not by selfishness, greed, deception, anger, hatred, or cowardice)?  What are the strengths and weaknesess of this action(s)?  Give particular attention to the virtues of wisdom, integrity, and moderation.

 

4. CONSIDERED MORAL JUDGMENT (CMJ)

 

If you were the person having to make the decision in the case, what would you do?  Explain what action you would take and give your reasons.  What theoretical appeals support your judgment?  Anticipate and respond to objections.  All things considered, what should a good and wise person do in this case?

 

[NOTE:  Documentation must be given for all ideas and arguments that are not common knowledge and that are from sources other than yourself (including interviews, telephone calls, TV programs, and the Internet).  You may use any method of documentation that you wish, as long it includes full information about the sources (author, title, place, publisher, date, pages, etc.).  Although you can use traditional footnote style if you like, usually adequate is the “parenthesis method” in which parentheses in the body of your paper give author and pages and then a list of “Works Cited” is at the end of the paper.]