Submission 3

1. Submission 3 April 3, 2013

2. Opportunities to discuss course content • Today 10-2 • Monday 10-2

3. Clearly Stated Learning Outcomes

4. Submission 3 Outcomes • Identify the issues associated with the controversy, the arguments made by stakeholders, and the plans each side is making to ensure their position is the one enacted; • Evaluate the argumentation of each position, including an analysis of logic and evidence; • Evaluate each position from the perspective of moral reasoning, including an analysis of values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles;

5. Expert Interviews

6. Identifying experts • Education and/or work experience in the area • Not just people with opinions

7. How Many Experts • Two total • 1 For Each Side • You must include the contact information in your research file • No anonymous interviews

9. What You Cannot Do • Interview family members • SEU affiliates • Interview via telephone

10. Finding interviewees • Ask your professors • Check the internet • Elected officials • LBJ School/UT • Interest groups in Town

11. The Questions

12. Writing your questionnaire • P 69-74 in Handbook • Ask About issues (3-5 questions) • Ask About moral reasoning (consequences) • Ask About your conclusion/solution Ask each interviewee the same questions.

13. WRONG QUESTIONS! • What do you know about the controversy? • Where do you stand on the controversy? (This is too much in your face) • Personal information, questions that put people in awkward situations.

14. Setting up the interviews • Start now. • Contact at least 3X as many people as you need. • Be professional – these people are doing you a favor. • Prepare to describe Capstone and your controversy quickly.

15. Setting Up the Interviews • Have a phone where you can be reached or a message can be left. • Ask for a time you can call back. • Ask for referrals. • Be persistent.

16. The Interview

17. Be Safe • Meet in a professional place • Bring Back-up if necessary • Stop the interview if you feel uncomfortable

18. Conducting the interview • Be on time. • Dress appropriately. • Taping: • Pre-ask • Be prepared • Take notes efficiently.

19. Conducting the Interview • Listen. • You are a reporter, not a debater. • Maintain control. • Keep the interview focused. • Remain courteous and open-minded. • Thank you note- you are representing future generations of St. Edward’s students.

20. Writing it up

21. Writing Up the Results of Interviews • Do it as soon as possible • You can always come back to it • You will address this in your final oral presentation and paper

22. Write-up: The questions • Report on every question • Direct quotation: • Use sparingly

23. Write-up: The analysis • “Feel” of the interviews • Interviewees: • Knowledgeable? • Open-minded? • Demeanor? • Did they change your mind on the issue?

24. SUBMISSION THREE ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH TENTATIVE CONCLUSION

25. Submission 3 is Now Due 4/15

26. THREE SECTIONS • Critical Thinking • Moral Reasoning • Tentative solution

27. Part I: CRITICAL THINKING:Analysis of argumentation and Evidence • Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of each side’s body of argumentation • Each argument and related evidence • Evaluate the arguments presented in paper 2, not your own! • Think of each major argument as a question needed to answer • Will Keystone XL pipeline reduce the price of oil? • Will the Dream act reduce illegal immigration?

28. Part II: Moral Reasoning • Obligations (of each side) • Values (held by each side) • Consequences (potentially coming from position) • Foundational normative principles (supporting case) • Other normative principles (supporting case)

29. Part III: Tentative Solution • Your answer to the thesis question • You must take a stand, i.e., answer the question • Note reservations, if you have any • Support your position

30. Mechanics • 6-8 pages long (estimate only) • Critical thinking = 3 pages • Moral reasoning = 3 pages • solution = 1 pages • Full Works Cited (at least 25 total sources) • Writing = as perfect as you can make it • MLA format = as perfect as possible

31. MORAL REASONING • A methodology to help people deal with moral dilemmas • The Key to doing well on paper 3

32. Moral Reasoning and Paper 3 • Your paper has a value-laden problem • Paper 3 uses moral reasoning to assess the moral components of each position • Read 61-67 and 121-134 of the Handbook

33. Moral Reasoning Requirements for the Capstone Project • For Each Side in Paper 3 you must identify analyze for the proponents and opponents • The Obligations inherent in the position • The Values underlying the position • The potential consequences of the position • The position in terms of the normative principles and theories that support it

34. Moral Reasoning and Capstone • Don’t simply list the values, obligations and consequences • Use the literature to justify these things for each side. Do not just assume that they believe it. • This means citations

35. WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA? • Occurs when you are facing a value-laden problem and… • All the choices appear to have merit

36. WHAT IS MORAL REASONING? • Ability to work through moral dilemmas using a rule-based framework • Involves both decision-making and taking action • Focuses on situations that involve value conflicts • Beliefs about what is good/desirable and undesirable

37. ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING • Obligations • Values • Consequences Be sure to consider each criteria before making any moral decisions.

38. OBLIGATIONS • Relationships imply obligations • Obligations relate to governmental roles (things government must do) • Obligations imply restrictions on behavior

39. Types of Obligations • Formal • Contracts, vows • Informal • Citizenship, friendship, family, professions

40. When Obligations Conflict • Sometimes both sides will have legitimate obligations • Give preference to the more important one • Try to find a middle ground and serve both • If only one can be served • What is the first obligation • What will cause the greatest harm if not filled

41. Values

42. WHAT ARE VALUES? • Beliefs about what is good/desirable and bad/undesirable • Guide us on how to behave • Unique to each individual • Change due to time, experience

43. Questions to Help identify Values • What do those holding a side expect to achieve? (terminal) • What interest do those holding a given position wish to protect or gain? • What shapes how a side acts (instrumental)

44. SOME EXAMPLES OF VALUES(terminology: Milton Rokeach) TERMINAL National security Family security Economic prosperity A peaceful world Inner harmony Salvation Equality Wisdom Justice An exciting life INSTRUMENTAL Imaginative Honest Kind Friendly Productive Polite Fair Obedient Generous

45. When Values Conflict • Select the higher ideal • Select the action that will achieve the greatest good • If there is no good, then choose the one with the lesser evil

46. Consequences

47. What are Consequences • They are the projected results that might occur from any given action. • Difficult to predict because people behave irrationally

48. CONSEQUENCES They are the projected results that might occur from any given action. • Beneficial or detrimental • Immediate or long-range • Intentional or unintentional • Involve the person performing the action and/or others

49. Normative Principles

50. What are they • Short statements about how humans “should” act. • Choose those that apply to your stakeholders’ positions and why they are applicable