Gerald McCabeAug 26, 2021 1111 AMNatural law concepts are pre

Gerald McCabe
Aug 26, 2021 11:11 AM
Natural law concepts are present in the writings of Plato and
Aristotle even though they were written centuries beforehand.
We know that Thomas Aquinas incorporated Aristotelian
concepts into his Christian worldview. (Hill, 2006,58). We can
detect the precursors of natural law concepts in the work of
Plato and Aristotle through their search for the purpose of man,
and the presence of good and evil in individuals and the larger
world. They came very close to ascribing divine intervention as
an explanation for purpose.
In After the Natural Law, Hill makes a fundamental point about
our modern world. Scientific progress has made tremendous
leaps in explaining how things function in our world, but the
explanations about the why are less satisfying. (Hill, 2006, 34.)
Hill recounts that the decline of natural law thought resulted in
the loss of God. (Hill, 2006, 14). We are then left with a
materialistic view of the world stripped of a moral compass.
In the Dialogues of Plato, there is a sense that the world is
ordered. In reviewing Hill’s After the Natural Law, Mangino
describes how Hill argued for a return to a worldview that sees
the world as an ordered, and intelligible place, rather than the
accidental by-product of a materialist-deterministic
environment. (Mangino, 2019). This would be a recognition that
things exist for a purpose and that final causes dictate the final
form they take. (Hill, 2006, 43.)
In our technological, secular world, society as a collective has
found the solution to many problems, but answering why we
exist and for what purpose is a much more complex problem.
Natural law has offered a response to this question for
centuries. The difficulty is the acceptance of the precepts of
natural law in our contemporary society.
Individuals who believe in God can freely accept that human
beings have a purpose. This teleological concept of purpose was

explored by Aristotle in his scientific search for the purpose of
mankind. (Hill, 2006, 45.) For Christians, both human nature
and reason are created by God, and the moral goodness of
choices is illuminated by this fact. (Lee, 2019, 279).
Tham examined how the natural law concepts went into decline
with contemporary debates over the biological nature of
mankind. (Tham,2014). This resulted in arguments being put
forth about human evolution, and changing accepted societal
standards. This discussion is outside of the purpose of this
examination of natural law. We are concerned here with
questions of ethics: the choices between right and wrong and
what motivates people to act as they do. These are the questions
that preoccupied Socrates and Plato in the readings.
These ethical choices are re- examined in what has come to be
known as new natural law theory (NNLT). (Lee, 2019) NNLT
focuses on the acts of will and the fulfillment of humans. This
is closer to the questions that were discussed by Socrates and
Plato.
Deinhammer wrote that natural law is embedded in Catholic
tradition and is based on the idea that as human beings, w e all
have an intuitive understanding of the way we should behave.
(Deinhammer, 2021, p.511). Brugger examined the moral
precepts found in natural law. In essence, they were moral
principles characterized by goodness, and the opposite which
defines wickedness. (Brugger, 2019, 187).
It fell to Aquinas, after a long line of Christian thinkers who
preceded him to describe the concepts of law. Essentially, he
posited that the eternal law is what determines order in the
world, and that natural law is the participation of humans in
God’s world. (Hill, 2006, 69.) Moreover, humans innately know
what is right or wrong and follow natural law in order to
comply with God’s will.
These ideas inevitably lead to a discussion about what is just in
a good society. When examining the ancient writings of Plato
and Aristotle, one is struck by how relevant the discussions are
to our contemporary times. Our society still struggles with

questions such as what a just society is, and what defines a true
statesman.
In his introduction to the Dialogues of Plato, Jowett highlights
the fact that Plato proceeded by examining justice in the society
as a whole before he would proceed to the individual. (Jowett,
1892, 39). For the individual, Plato identifies justice as being a
part of the soul. (Jowett,1892,15). However, it is also in line
with the Aristotelean concept that man is a political animal and
is necessarily a part of society.
Socrates asks for the meaning of the word justice in his
discussion with his friends at the house of Cephalus. (Jowett,
1892, 25). In response, Cephalus articulated a profound idea of
what justice is to a man who is in his advanced years. He
explains that when the end of life is approaching, some comfort
can be found in never having done an injustice to other people
because of poverty, and to be content in the knowledge that you
have never deceived anyone. (Jowett, 1892,25).
It seems evident that in order to achieve such a state, a society
must be structured so that it is truly fair and equitable. In such a
society, no person will be motivated to do wrong to their fellow
man because of the destitute state that they find themselves in.
The same goes for the necessity to deceive others in order to get
ahead in life.
It is this utopian society that John Rawls envisioned when he
wrote that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Rawls
believed that if we believe in a just collective life, we can
achieve it even though it may appear to be utopian in nature.
(Rawls, 2007, 27).
In the Dialogues of Plato, there is a sense that the world is
ordered. In reviewing Hill’s After the Natural Law, Mangingo
describes how Hill argued for a return to a worldview that sees
the world as an ordered, and intelligible place, rather than the
accidental by-product of a materialist-deterministic
environment. It is a recognition that things exist for a purpose
and that final causes dictate the final form they take. (Hill,
2006, 43.)

The discussion in the dialogue between Socrates and his
colleagues, touches on the nature of good and evil which resides
within an individual. They examine whether a poor good man or
a bad rich man will see more success in their endeavors, even in
the realm of politics.
Further on in Book II, a rather dim view of the need for justice
is expressed. The thought is that all men believe that injustice is
more profitable than justice, and that they act in a just manner
out of necessity. The colleagues of Socrates ask him to prove
that justice is better than injustice and what effect they have on
the individual who is governed by these tendencies. (Jewett,
1892, 277)
In selecting who should rule a society, Socrates posits that only
the best and wisest should rule or act as guardians of the State,
and they must be monitored the whole time they discharge their
function of protecting the State against enemies and preserving
peace at home. (Jowett, 1892, 341.) The Greeks believed that
the end goal of politics was to produce just and virtuous
citizens. (Presentation, Ancient Precursors of Natural Law:
Plato and Aristotle).
If we accept this worldview, then justice can be applied in cases
where an individual has purposefully transgressed against the
rest of society. Certainly, ethics is more than a stark choice
between right and wrong and is more akin to a continuu m. This
is what the Greeks alluded to when examining the difference
between a theoretical discussion of ethics and a real -world
application scenario.
Application of the law then becomes a method for dealing with
the ethical questions that were discussed in Plato’s Dialogues.
Both individuals in a society and the rulers or statesmen in that
society can be held to account for their actions and are not
above the law.
This is essential because Aristotle considered man to be a
political animal by nature. This he attributed to man’s ability to
converse and exchange ideas, unlike animals. (Jowett, 1885,
151). He went further to say that in general, man cannot survive

on his own outside of society. (Jowett, 1885, 154). Indeed, he
held that man striving for a perfect form is the best of animals
but without law and justice he is the worst. (Jowett, 1885, 155).
In his introduction to the Statesman, Jowett notes that Plato
sees the identification of a true stateman as a selection process
in which contenders are divided and sub-divided. (Jowett, 1871,
436). For Socrates, it is not power but knowledge that
distinguishes a true king or statesman. (Jowett, 1871, 435).
Socrates considered the science of government to be the greatest
of all sciences, and that not all individuals can master the art of
political science. (Jowett, 1871, 517). A stateman should rule on
the basis of scientific principles. (Jowett, 1871, 518).
Finally, a statesman who acts with wisdom and the application
of justice, and in the interests of security and improvement of
their city is a true statesman. As such, a true statesman does not
allow the state to be influence by a combination of good and
bad men. (Jowett, 1871, 536).
References
1. Budziszewski, J. (2009) The Line Through the Heart: Natural
Law as Fact, Theory and Sign of Contradiction, ISI Books,
Wilmington, Delaware.
2. Brugger, E. C. (2019). “St. Thomas’s Natural Law
Theory”. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly., 19(2),
181–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201919215
3. Chng, K. (2018). “An Analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’s
Position on the Relationship Between Justice and
Legality”. Journal Jurisprudence, 37, 196–219.
4. Deinhammer, Robert (2021) “Can Natural Law Ethics be
Tenable Today? Towards a Critical Natural Law Theory”. The
Heythrop Journal, HeyJ LXII, p 511-534.
5. Hatzistavrou, A. (2018). “Plato’s Legal Positivism in the
Laws”. Jurisprudence, 9(2), 209–
235. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2016.1268445.
6. Hill, John L. (2006). After the Natural law: How the
Classical Worldview Supports our Modern Moral and Political

Values. Ignatius Press, San Francisco.
7. Jowett, B, (1871). The Dialogues of Plato Volume III, Oxford
University Press, London.
8. Jowett, B. (1871). The Dialogues of Plato Volume XV,
Oxford University Press, London.
9. Jowett, B. (1871). The Dialogues of Plato Volume V, Oxford
10. Jowett, B. (1885). The Politics of Aristotle, Oxford
11. Lee, P. (2019). “God and New Natural Law
Theory”. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 19(2), 279–
291. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201919219
12. Mangino, D. (2019). “After the Natural Law: How the
Classical Worldview Supports Our Modern Moral and Political
Values”. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 19(3), 502–
505. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201919341
13. Pogue, T. (2007) John Rawls: His Life and Theory of
Justice. Oxford university Press. London.
14. Tham, J. (2014). “The Decline of Natural Law
Reasoning”. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 14(2), 245–
255.
15. Udoudom, M. D., & Bassey, S. A. (2018). “Plato and John
Rawls on Social Justice”. Researchers World, 9(3), 110-
114.http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.18843/rwjasc/v9i3/
13
16. Van Broekhoven, H. R. A. (2017). “Morality And Law In a
Global Society: A Place For Natural Law Theory?” Frontiers of
Law in China, 12(4), 626-672.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.3868/s050-006-017-
0032-0
Andrew Jarosh
Aug 26, 2021 11:04 AM
Why have I chosen to pursue a PhD in Public Policy, Economic
Policy? I want to contribute to the improvement of governance

of our society and nation.
This implies that I believe I can contribute. Also, this is
predicated on my own personal definition of “improvement.” I
have been the elected Treasurer of my county here in upstate
New York for nearly seven years. I have seen first-hand how the
State’s policies make the governance of the county more
difficult. I have had to navigate conflicts between my own value
set and those of the policy-makers in Albany. Further, I have
two masters in Administration (Business and Public) and
another masters in Financial Engineering (the science and
design of finance; where ‘finance’ is accumulation of capital
investment and is a necessary function of any organization
seeking to expend funds to acquire resources to utilize in
pursuit of goal.) My education combined with my experience
has led me to the conclusion that most of our governments in
the United States are being run, at best, improperly and, at
worst, nefariously. This affects me both in the moral sense and
the personal sense. As a Christian politico myself who self-
educates in history, religion, and political philosophy, I am
horrified by what many of our governmental institutions have
become. As a dad with a couple of kids, a mortgage, and tax
bill, I am frustrated by the ever-increasing cost of living in my
community that I attribute greatly to poor governance run by
legislators more motivated by ambition and avarice than by any
moral or altruistic sense of public service. For these reasons, I
am joining all of you in entering the field of public policy and
honing my particular education and experience on economic
policy.
My Christian world-view does not just effect my stance on
social issues, but also, and perhaps especially, on economic
issues. We are endowed with creator-granted rights. We are also
all loaned talents, and the Lord expects those talents to be
repaid… with interest. Wasting those talents and infringing on
our fellow citizens’ rights is, to me, a moral issue. They are an

affront to the Lord. Without going into a long dissertation on
this alone, I’ll say that many Christian religions put high value
and priority on personal industriousness and self-reliance for
exactly these reasons.
From here, I wanted to present to the group and interesting
dilemma, or potential pitfall, that I think we all may have to
deal with someday in our upcoming careers:
After reading the chapter on Ethics in public policy research
and analysis, I find myself contemplating the “industry” in
which we are about to enter. There is no way to separate public
policy from political science. There are real-world pressures
involved that must be considered, most notably our own
livelihoods and ability to provide for our families. It seems as if
policy research is akin to a tool that can be used for both good
and evil. It depends on the motivations of the one performing
the research and the one using the research. Further, the policy
analyst must strive to know the motivations of the client to
determine how their work will be used. “Analysts must expect
their clients to be players in the game of politics – players who
not only have their own personal conceptions of ‘the good
society’ but who also must acknowledge the often narrow
interest of their constituencies if they hope to remain in the
game,” (Weimer and Vining, page 42.)
To ‘know your client’ (“KYC” in banking lingo), however, is
more than just having a conversation with them and assessing
their levels of ambition and avarice, their politics, and their
personal motivations. KYC also entails understanding the world
in which the client lives.
Knowing our role as public policy researchers/analysts requires
an understanding of where public policy fits into the
governmental structure. As I view it from an academic point of
view, we are one point on the triangle of related fields: Political

Science – Public Policy – Public Administration. In general,
political science is how to build consensus and support for
policy and how to navigate the public and political pressures of
the day in doing so; and Public Administration is the design,
implementation, and administration (and ongoing review and
redesign) of programs intent on enacting policy. In order to
determine how our client, whether they be an elected official
engaging mainly in political science, or an agency head
engaging in public administration, will use our work product
(and how to design our work product to fit their needs), we need
to have a productive understanding of these other two highly
related fields.
For a policy to be ultimately implemented two things are
required: political feasibility and administrative feasibility. A
policy that has no chance of gaining a ‘yay’ vote by the
legislature has no chance of being implemented. Further, a
policy that requires an array of dozens of highly complex,
expensive, specialized, hard-to-measure programs has little
chance of being implemented due to the shear difficulty of
implementing it, let alone implementing it correctly.
It seems that a major part of our role as policy
researchers/analysts is to provide policy recommendations that
are feasible (or at least to assess their feasibility.) And it seems
that, in my initial research, an obstacle has arisen in the field
when it comes to policy design: governments just are not
equipped, structured, or competent to implement needed policy.
(See Romme and Meijer 2020)
Further, it seems that just having an understanding of public
administration and governmental bureaucracy required to
implement the policy may not be enough for the policy
researcher/analyst. Changes in governmental structure and
operations may be required. (ibid.) As a public administrator, I
can provide anecdotal evidence to this effect. I would argue that
the vast majority of governments, local and state and to large

extent federal, “muddle through” (Lindblom, 1952) each fiscal
year with no clear policies, program analysis, or strategic
direction.
This, if true, creates a challenge for us policy researchers as we
have to be aware of the fact that our political-science-engaged
clients supporting and building consensus for our policy
recommendations may end up blaming us and our policy
recommendation if and when the policy fails due to it being
poorly implemented and administered.
Thoughts?
____________________
Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of “Muddling through,” 19
Pub. Admin. Rev. 79 (1959)." Communication Law and Policy
25, no. 4 (2020): 451-455.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/10811680.202
0.1805947.
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3 A%2F%2Fwww.pr
oquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Flindblom-charles-e-i-
science-muddling-through-
19%2Fdocview%2F2454626709%2Fse-
2%3Faccountid%3D12085.
Romme, A. Georges L. and Albert Meijer. "Applying Design
Science in Public Policy and Administration Research." Policy
and Politics 48, no. 1 (2020): 149-165.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1332/030557319X1
5613699981234.
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pr
oquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fapplying-design-science-
public-policy%2Fdocview%2F2339828299%2Fse-
2%3Faccountid%3D12085.

Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. Policy Analysis :
Concepts and Practice. Florence: Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID
=4834198.
Patrick Katsaris
Aug 23, 2021 11:59 AM
As an intelligence analyst in the Federal government, I am often
tasked with informing policy makers on numerous issues that
involved the United States and her interests. I have chosen to
continue my education in this PhD program to hone my research
and analysis skills, as well as lay the foundation for future work
as a policy analyst in the United States government. As I have
focused most of my career in foreign policy, I have chosen this
to be my designated cognate.
As stated, I served in the Intelligence Community. For the past
four years, I have supported the Department of State and
Department of Defense in issues involving Congressional
relations, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and regional
analysis. My skills focus on the research and analysis of
relevant intelligence to produce intelligence products which
were to be used by decision makers to form policy. This
program will continue to build onto my current expertise. By
gaining a deeper understanding of policy analysis I will be
better able to serve my intelligence clients and consumers in the
future.
So far, with just one class, this program is already beginning to
broaden my understanding of policy formation. In this week’s
assigned reading “Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice”, we
were introduced to the role of the policy analysts. Policy
analysts are meant to be trusted advisors to their
clients.[1] Like my role as an intelligence analyst, I am
expected to provide products that are free of bias that is meant

to solely inform my clients. Policy analysts, however, are much
more involved in the outcomes. Additionally, the analyst is
responsible for delivering non-biased information to their
client. This also involves ensuring the products are not self-
serving and follow an ethical framework.
A lack of ethics in the Intelligence Community and its analysts
led to a policy failure in the early 2000’s. During the George W.
Bush administration, intelligence analysts, wanting to gain
favor with high-level government officials, often gave unvetted
and raw intelligence on weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s)
to congressmen, senators, and the Presidents staff.[2] The role
the intelligence and policy analyst ultimately led to an
intelligence and policy failure that both hurt the United States’
reputation and its mission abroad.
As my cognate is foreign policy, I believe my calling as a
Christian shapes how I perceive public policy focused on the
international arena. I believe in the policies that aim to solidify
a peaceful and rules based international order. With a rules-
based order comes the opportunity for Christians to spread the
word of Jesus Christ. As stated in Corinthians, “So we are
Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We
speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to
God!”.[3] Public policy that promotes democracy and capitalism
tends to show increased standards of living and reduced
suffering. As a Christian, it is important to me to aid in the
reduction of suffering while also spreading the word of our
Lord.
[1] Weimer, David Leo, and Aidan Vining. Policy Analysis:
Concepts and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2017.
[2] Kessler, Glenn. “Analysis | The Iraq War and Wmds: An
Intelligence Failure or White House Spin?” The Washington
Post. WP Company, March 25, 2019. Last modified March 25,
2019. Accessed August 23, 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-
wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/.

[3] 2 Cor 5:20
Criteria Ratings Points
Content
Thread
15 to >14.0 pts
Advanced
• Each question/prompt is
answered thoroughly and
logically. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively.
• Clear, logical flow to post;
stayed on topic.
14 to >13.0 pts
Proficient
• Each question/prompt is
answered. • Major points are
stated clearly and effectively for
the most part. • Clear, logical
and focused for the most part.
13 to >0.0 pts
Developing

• Not all facets
of the
prompt/questions
are answered.
• Lack of clarity,
coherence, logic
and focus in key
areas.
0 pts
Not
Present
15 pts
Content
Thread:
Research
Engagement
12 to >11.0 pts
Advanced
• Ideas from all the required
Learn materials from the
module and 2 scholarly
sources are integrated.
• Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.
11 to >10.0 pts

Proficient
• Ideas from most of the
required Learn materials from
the module and 2 scholarly
sources are integrated.
• Scripture/biblical principles
are included but unfocused at
times.
10 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Ideas from few
of the required
Learn materials
from the module
and 2 scholarly
sources are
integrated.
• Missing Biblical
integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
12 pts
Content
Reply
15 to >14.0 pts

Advanced
• 2 unique interaction posts
with classmates. • One reply
posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • Moves
the conversation forward with
new ideas, research, and
analysis. • Student’s response
delivered in a thorough,
thoughtful, and analytical
manner with the student’s
position clearly evident.
14 to >13.0 pts
Proficient
• At least 2 unique interaction
posts with classmates. • One
reply posted to each of 2
classmates’ threads. • New
ideas, research, and analysis
are not always included.
• Some commentary is
repetitive from one reply to the
next. • At times, reply posts do
not seem to actually build upon
classmate’s post.
13 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or

more reply posts.
• Reply posts
are redundant.
• Little in the
way of new
ideas, research,
and analysis are
not always
included.
0 pts
Not
Present
15 pts
Discussion Grading Rubric | PLCY700_B03_202140
Content
Reply:
Research
Engagement
11 to >9.0 pts
Advanced
posted to each of 2

classmates’ threads.
• Relates topic to
Scripture/biblical principles
where appropriate.
• Contains abundant citations
from Learn materials and 2
scholarly sources.
9 to >8.0 pts
Proficient
posted to each of 2 classmates’
threads. • Scripture/biblical
principles are included but
unfocused at times. • Contains
some citations from Learn
materials and scholarly
sources.
8 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or
more reply posts.
• Missing Biblical
integration.
• Limited
citations from the
Learn materials.
0 pts

Not
Present
11 pts
Structure
Grammar,
Spelling and
Turabian
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
Minimal to no errors in
grammar, spelling, or
Turabian.
13 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Some errors in grammar,
spelling, or Turabian.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Numerous errors
in grammar,
spelling, or
Turabian.
0 pts

Not
Present
15 pts
Structure
Word Count
7 to >6.0 pts
Advanced
Appropriate word count:
450-500 words for thread;
200–250 words per reply.
6 to >5.0 pts
Proficient
100 words more or less than
the required length.
5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Over 100 words
more or less than
the required
length.
0 pts

Not
Present
7 pts
Total Points: 75
Discussion Grading Rubric | PLCY700_B03_202140
PLCY 700
Discussion Assignment Instructions
The student will complete four Discussions in this course. The
student will post one thread of at least 450 words by 11:59 p.m.
(ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. The student
must then post two replies of at least 250 words by 11:59 p.m.
(ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread,
students must support their assertions with at least two
scholarly citations in Turabian format. Each reply must
incorporate at least two scholarly citations in Turabian format.
Any sources cited must have been published within the last five
years. Acceptable sources include the course readings and/or
scholarly sources, such as books and peer-reviewed journal
articles.
· Explain why you have chosen to pursue a doctoral degree in
public policy, and in your chosen cognate. (If you have not
chosen a cognate, explain why.)
· Describe your professional experience and skills, including
any specific knowledge on which you can build in your
scholarship on public policy.
· Elaborate on the ways in which your Christian worldview or

calling have shaped the way that you approach your
understanding of the public policy issues that concern you.
Textbooks
Weimer and Vining chapter 2,3 and 14
Content
Master
27 to >24.0 pts
Advanced
The thread and replies display
clear content mastery while
critically analyzing/evaluating
each of the assignment prompts.
There are at least two replies.
24 to >22.0 pts
Proficient
The thread and replies
address each of the
assignment prompts,
yet with modest
evidence of subject
mastery or critical

analysis. There are at
least two replies.
22 to >0.0 pts
Developing
loosely relate to or
neglect 1 or more of
the assigned prompts
and do not effectively
develop the
discussion beyond
minimal or superficial
understanding of the
topic. Missing one
reply.
0 pts
Not
Present
27 pts
Clarity and
Coherence
27 to >24.0 pts
Advanced
The thread and replies are
critical in its approach to each of
the assignment prompts,

providing evidence of coherent
reasoning, analytical insight, and
relevant research. There are at
least two replies.
24 to >22.0 pts
Proficient
are satisfactory, but
does not provide
strong evidence of
coherent reasoning,
clear writing, or critical
analysis based on
careful research or
current literature.
There are at least two
replies.
22 to >0.0 pts
Developing
demonstrate a clear
bias or does not
provide a clearly
discernible position on
the issue. Evidence of
research is not
present. Missing one
reply.
0 pts

Not
Present
27 pts
Evidence and
Detail
16 to >14.0 pts
Advanced
The thread and replies provide
evidence that is sufficiently
detailed, defined, or explained,
and highly relevant to the
assignment prompts. There are
at least two replies.
14 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
contain satisfactory
evidence yet is
insufficiently detailed,
defined, or explained,
and/or questionably
relevant to the
assignment prompts.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing

Evidence in the thread
and replies is
and is marginally
relevant to the
assignment prompts,
if at all. Missing one
reply.
0 pts
Not
Present
16 pts
Discussion: Ancient Pre-Cursors of Natural Law Grading Rubric
|
PLCY701_B02_202140
Organization,
Writing
Mechanics,
Grammar,
and Spelling
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced

The argument, evidence, and
conclusion of the thread and
replies are coherently written and
organized with fewer than 2
errors in grammar or spelling.
17 to >16.0 pts
Proficient
The argument,
evidence, and
conclusion of the
thread and replies are
relatively clear, yet
partially obscured by
poor organization,
writing mechanics,
and/or fewer than 5
errors in grammar or
spelling.
16 to >0.0 pts
Developing
The argument,
evidence, and
conclusion of the
disrupted by poor
organization, writing
mechanics, and/or
fewer than 8 errors in
grammar or spelling.

0 pts
Not
Present
20 pts
Current
Turabian
Format
Compliance
and
Assignment
Requirements
10 to >9.0 pts
Advanced
There are only minimal errors
(1–2) noted in current Turabian
formatting. The original thread is
at least 1000 words, and each
reply is 300–350 words. The
original thread has at least 10
citations and at least 1 Scripture
reference. Each reply has at
least 3 citations and at least 1
Scripture reference.
9 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
There are a few errors
(3–4) noted in current

Turabian formatting.
The thread and/or
replies may not meet
the word count
requirements and may
be lacking required
citations.
7 to >0.0 pts
Developing
There are numerous
errors (5+) noted in
current Turabian
formatting. The thread
and/or replies do not
meet the word count
requirements and lack
required citations.
0 pts
Not
Present
10 pts
Total Points: 100
|
PLCY701_B02_202140
-Discussion: Ancient Precursors to Natural Law: Plato and

Aristotle
In terms of the discussion, you will need to post one thread of at
least 1000 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of this week,
and then post two replies of at least 300 words by 11:59 p.m.
(ET) on Sunday. Please support your original post with a
minimum of ten scholarly citations and one scriptural citation in
Turabian format. Each reply must incorporate at least
three scholarly citations and one scriptural citation in Turabian
format. Any sources cited must have been published within the
last five years. Acceptable sources include all the course
readings for the included Natural Law thinkers (required), other
primary works by the included Natural Law thinkers, academic
journal articles, books published by university presses.
The readings for this week provide you with a survey of Plato
and Aristotle on the nature of politics and the moral life—
Plato’s The Republic, The Laws, and Aristotle’s The Politics.
No person can read and comprehend these works in a week!
During the last thirty-five years I have taught semester-long
courses that were devoted to just one of these texts! To help
you with this assignment, I will be making specific
recommendations by Monday afternoon (22 March) regarding
useful selections from the three texts that can help guide your
efforts. This should help you prepare for the assignments at
hand. Also, see Dr. Chubb’s presentation, “Ancient Precursors
of Natural Law: Plato and Aristotle.” To provide some
additional background, you might also find my attached
introduction to Plato and Aristotle on democracy helpful, as
well as a brief introduction on how scholars have interpreted
Aristotle, who is often not as well know as his teacher, Plato.
The last two readings are supplemental and not required for the
assignment.
Selections to Read for this Week’s Assignment (Week 1)
This is an effort to help you during the first week of class by
limited our reading assignments.
The division of ancient texts often seem strange to we modern
readers, as these divisions are almost always made by later

writers and editors. For example, all of Plato’s writings were
divided by a Renaissance editor named Stephanus into sections
with numbers. Aristotle’s works are listed in a similar manner.
As you know, Holy Scripture did not appear in our familiar
chapter and verse form for centuries.
Here is refined selection of readings for your use:
Plato, The Republic
Book I Stephanus 327-347 (Use Facsimile PDF, Jowett)
pp. 1-26
Book 4 Stephanus 475-497 (Use Facsimile PDF, Jowett)
pp. 172-196
Plato, The Laws
718-723 (Use Facsimile PDF, Jowett)
pp. 101-107
Aristotle, The Politics
1252a-1253 (Use Facsimile PDF, Jowett)
pp. 1-6
1260627-1261a9 (Use Facsimile PDF, Jowett)
pp. 27-52
(We will return to the Statesman later in the course.)
Optional readings:
PlatoAristotleonDemocracy.pdf download
Aristotle-1.pdf download
Content
Master
27 to >24.0 pts
Advanced

The thread and replies display
clear content mastery while
critically analyzing/evaluating
each of the assignment prompts.
There are at least two replies.
24 to >22.0 pts
Proficient
address each of the
assignment prompts,
yet with modest
evidence of subject
mastery or critical
analysis. There are at
least two replies.
22 to >0.0 pts
Developing
loosely relate to or
neglect 1 or more of
the assigned prompts
and do not effectively
develop the
discussion beyond
minimal or superficial
understanding of the
topic. Missing one
reply.
0 pts

Not
Present
27 pts
Clarity and
Coherence
27 to >24.0 pts
Advanced
The thread and replies are
critical in its approach to each of
the assignment prompts,
providing evidence of coherent
reasoning, analytical insight, and
relevant research. There are at
least two replies.
24 to >22.0 pts
Proficient
are satisfactory, but
does not provide
strong evidence of
coherent reasoning,
clear writing, or critical
analysis based on
careful research or
current literature.
There are at least two
replies.

22 to >0.0 pts
Developing
demonstrate a clear
bias or does not
provide a clearly
discernible position on
the issue. Evidence of
research is not
present. Missing one
reply.
0 pts
Not
Present
27 pts
Evidence and
Detail
16 to >14.0 pts
Advanced
The thread and replies provide
evidence that is sufficiently
detailed, defined, or explained,
and highly relevant to the
assignment prompts. There are
at least two replies.

14 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
contain satisfactory
evidence yet is
and/or questionably
relevant to the
assignment prompts.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Evidence in the thread
and replies is
and is marginally
relevant to the
assignment prompts,
if at all. Missing one
reply.
0 pts
Not
Present
16 pts
|

PLCY701_B02_202140
Organization,
Writing
Mechanics,
Grammar,
and Spelling
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
The argument, evidence, and
conclusion of the thread and
replies are coherently written and
organized with fewer than 2
errors in grammar or spelling.
17 to >16.0 pts
Proficient
The argument,
evidence, and
conclusion of the
relatively clear, yet
partially obscured by
poor organization,
writing mechanics,
and/or fewer than 5
errors in grammar or

spelling.
16 to >0.0 pts
Developing
The argument,
evidence, and
conclusion of the
disrupted by poor
organization, writing
mechanics, and/or
fewer than 8 errors in
grammar or spelling.
0 pts
Not
Present
20 pts
Current
Turabian
Format
Compliance
and
Assignment
Requirements
10 to >9.0 pts
Advanced
There are only minimal errors

(1–2) noted in current Turabian
formatting. The original thread is
at least 1000 words, and each
reply is 300–350 words. The
original thread has at least 10
citations and at least 1 Scripture
reference. Each reply has at
least 3 citations and at least 1
Scripture reference.
9 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
There are a few errors
(3–4) noted in current
Turabian formatting.
The thread and/or
replies may not meet
the word count
requirements and may
be lacking required
citations.
7 to >0.0 pts
Developing
There are numerous
errors (5+) noted in
current Turabian
formatting. The thread
and/or replies do not
meet the word count
requirements and lack
required citations.

0 pts
Not
Present
10 pts
Total Points: 100
|
PLCY701_B02_202140
PLCY 701
Discussions Assignment Instructions
In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role.
The readings are relatively short to allow for substantial
reflection, personal research, and quality discussion to occur.
Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications
on the same level as those you would conduct with employers,
clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic
world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must
be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of
well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies,
rather than mere ipse dixit. These threads and replies must
provide citations to the sources of or support for your ideas as
well as any quoted materials and/or borrowed ideas.
Open, courteous discussion will yield the greatest opportunities
for growth in this course. Both responding to other students
and responding to the instructor will count as 1 reply post.
Remember that the art of communication is in many ways the
essence of effective political leadership. Everything you write —
every paper, post, and email—creates or reinforces an
impression of you. You are encouraged to begin to cultivate the

communication skills of the statesmen and stateswomen—the
ability to logically and persuasively speak the truth with
compassion and respect.
You will take part in 5 Discussions in Modules 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7:
Weeks 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. You will compose an original post
presenting your own interpretation of the assigned prompt,
writing at least 1,000 words, then, you will post replies of 300–
350 words to at least 2 other students’ original threads. Each
reply must be unique.
Responding to a classmate’s original post requires both the
addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by
the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis
in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response
post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon
initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of
the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts
that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the
previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive
contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point
deductions. Posting the same reply in two places is also not
sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct.
Original posts must include at least 10 references to the course
readings and 1 Scripture reference in addition to any other
sources you wish to include. Replies must include at least 3
references to the course readings and 1 Scripture reference in
addition to any other sources you wish to include. Scriptural
excerpts with citations are required in all written assignments,
including all discussion board posts (both the original post and
the replies).
Submit your threads by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the
assigned Module: Week. Submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET)
on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week.
Thread
What pre-cursors to Natural Law concepts are present in the

political ideas of Plato and Aristotle? Be sure to include a
discussion of justice and statesmanship in your answ er.
Textbook
The republic
Statesman
The law
Politics

Gerald McCabeAug 26, 2021 1111 AMNatural law concepts are pre

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from MatthewTennant613

More from MatthewTennant613 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gerald McCabeAug 26, 2021 1111 AMNatural law concepts are pre