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

51. FOUNDATIONAL NORMATIVE PRINCIPLE: RESPECT FOR PERSONS Honor others’ rights Do not treat them as a means to our ends Theological – Humans are created in God’s image Philosophical – We wish the best for others, since they are the same as us

52. Principle of Consistency Moral reasons and actions are binding on all people at all times in all places, given the same relevant circumstances. Moral Decisions are not contradictory- if it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.

53. Principle of Rationality All legitimate moral acts must be supported by generally accepted reasons.

54. Principle of Least Harm When one has to choose between evils, he/she should choose the one which will cause the least harm. When one has to choose between goods, one should choose the one which will cause the most good.

55. Principle of Right Desire we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else Go with the best policy

56. The Categorical Imperative The Categorical Imperative- you should act as if your act were going to become a universal law of nature Act in such a way that you're willing to have (literally) everybody do the same. If you're considering cheating on your taxes, you might reflect: What would happen if everybody cheated on their taxes?

57. Principle of Ends Do not Treat people solely as a means to your ends The ends, no matter how noble, are not justified by immoral actions

58. Utilitarianism The closest “moral” law in politics. Act Utilitarianism- an act is morally right if it produces the greatest good (utility) for the greatest number. This can be a government service, wealth, freedom, etc. Rule Utilitarianism- similar to above, but it applies to all cases over a long term.

59. Principle of Consequences The only thing that matters is the amount of good produced Similar to Cost-Benefit analysis.

60. Cost Effectiveness The Most effective choice is the one that gives the most “bang for the buck” Fixed-Budget Analysis

61. Fixed Effectiveness The most effective choice is the one that provides the necessary good at the lowest cost

62. MAKING A MORAL DECISION

63. USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY 1.Study the details of the case 2.Identify the relevant criteria Obligations Values Consequences 3.Identify the foundational values at play 4.Determine courses of action 5.Choose the most morally responsible action

64. USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY 1.Study the details of the case – sometimes there are not enough details to satisfy the three criteria. – Use creative thinking to speculate about possible answers, depending on different imagined details.

65. USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Identify the relevant criteria Here you should identify the obligations, values and consequences. Whom will they affect, in what way. Consider which of the three is most important in the given case. Many times with public policy, you will find the consequences to be the most important.

66. USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Determine possible course of action- consider all the choices of action that are available. It is only in rare circumstances that an individual has just one course of action. – E.g. adopt, reject the policy

67. USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY Choose the action that is most morally responsible after reviewing the information above

68. In Paper 3 Conclude your moral reasoning section with a justification of which side has presented the more moral argument Use their arguments Avoid presenting a straw man