The document summarizes a reflective paper about an ethical issue that arose in a law firm. There were three main ethical issues: whether to accept the client's claims at face value, whether to properly assess the mental capacity of one individual involved, and whether an independent lawyer should have been involved to avoid conflicts of interest. After drafting the necessary documents, the intended outcome of protecting the grandparents failed, and legal action was taken. Upon reflection, the author realized they took a utilitarian approach that did not properly consider all ethical perspectives or parties' rights. Going forward, they would take a virtue ethics approach to ensure all actions were ethical.

1. Sample Of assignment
Introduction Comment by Jane Summers: Introduction – The
first part of your essay should describe what happened, what did
you do, what was your role and what was the role of others
involved? In this section you also need to make clear what the
ethical issue was and why it was an issue. This section should
be short, concise and factual. There is no need for emotion or
feelings at this point.
The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon an ethical issue that
arose in my law firm. The paper discusses what happened, what
the ethical issues were, how I felt at the time, how I went about
dealing with these ethical issues including what ethical
approach I subconsciously took, what caused me to take that
approach and what ethical approach I would take if I was in the
position again. I conclude with what I learnt from the reflective
process.
In 2009 a lady, Fiona, and her grandfather, Paul, attended my
law firm. Fiona said Paul and her grandmother, Mary, owned a
house. They were worried that Fiona’s mother, Christine, (an
apparent drug user) was going to try and force the grandparents
into signing the house over to her and then evict the
grandparents out of the house.
Fiona indicated they had mutually agreed that to protect the
grandparents from the anticipated actions of Christine, the
grandparents would gift the house to Fiona. Fiona, as owner of
the house and presumably someone, whom Christine couldn’t
stand over, would then let them stay in the house until they
died.
Fiona told me that Mary was in hospital, very ill and slowly
losing her mental capacity. They wanted the transfer of house to
take place urgently. Based on what Fiona and Paul said, I
drafted the necessary documents and the house was transferred
into Fiona’s name.

2. There were three ethical issues. Firstly, should I accept the
word of Fiona that Christine would try to force the grandparents
out of the house; after all it could be Fiona herself who was out
to deceive her grandparents.
Secondly, should I make enquiries about Mary’s mental
capacity, perhaps even attend the hospital? However, as I was
told this was an urgent matter, I prepared the documents
immediately to be taken to Mary for signing.
Finally, should I have persuaded Fiona to get her own lawyer to
avoid any conflict, after all I was there to look after the
interests of the grandparents? Comment by Jane Summers: This
introduction is concise, explains the scenario, identifies the
ethical issues that were present and does not attach a value
judgement or emotion to the information.
Feelings and Emotions Comment by Jane Summers: This next
section is where you describe how you felt about the issue. You
should discuss what were you thinking at the time, and perhaps
the emotional state you were in when taking the actions you
took or after the event occurred.
I had various feelings and thoughts about this issue at the time.
Initially, I was sceptical of what I was being told by Fiona. It
was hard for me to believe that a daughter would try to take her
parents’ house. Fiona had asked me on several occasions if the
transfer of the house could be set aside and under what
circumstances, which in itself raised concerns. However Paul
agreed this was a risk which did ease my mind. I felt therefore
that the elderly grandparents needed protection. I had concerns
about what Mary’s mental state was at the time. I felt I should
have obtained a medical report but was conflicted about the
apparent urgency of the transaction and the desire of both
parties to rush through the transfer to protect the grandparents. I
felt I should have investigated more deeply the motives of Fiona
by speaking independently to Paul without Fiona present and
possibly even advising Paul to have independent legal advice to
protect his interests. Overall I thought it better for Fiona to own

3. the house than her drug using mother, so I put through the
paperwork even thought I meant cutting corners to achieve this
and protect the grandparents. In summary I was conflicted and
uneasy about the transaction, the need for urgency and the lack
of due process that would normally be there to protect all
parties.
Mary subsequently died. Christine discovered Fiona now owned
the house and succeeded in becoming the guardian of Paul and
sued Fiona to get the house back into the Paul’s name.
Comment by Jane Summers: This section was concise,
written in the first person, highlighted the emotions and feelings
of the writer and explored these issues.
Evaluation Comment by Jane Summers: This next stage
requires you to step back from the issue, think about what
happened, how you acted, who played what roles and
deconstruct the event. This is where you also refer to the theory
you have just been reading about workplace ethics to help you
to explain WHY you believe the scenario unfolded as it did,
WHY the players (yourself included) reacted and performed as
they did and WHY the outcomes were inevitable. You may
explore your own personal ethical perspective as part of this
process and reflect on how this may have impacted your
thinking and actions and how this differs from or is similar to
others who were involved in this issue and the consequences of
this.
By reflecting on this event, I consider that my biases,
assumptions, values and beliefs played a part in the matters
taking place. What were these biases, assumptions, values and
beliefs? Firstly, I failed to tell Fiona to instruct her own lawyer
to participate in the transaction to provide a neutral third party
view. Fiona was a very articulate well-groomed businesswoman
and I assumed and was satisfied therefore that she was able to
evaluate her own needs for legal advice. I took a biased view
that an articulate businesswoman didn’t need a lawyer to advise
her, a view I wouldn’t have taken if say she came from a poorer
suburb and attended my office poorly dressed or less well

4. groomed. As I was acting for the grandparents I was only
concerned with their interests. If Fiona had her own lawyer, she
or he could have confirmed the danger of the transfer being set
aside (something I advised Fiona and Paul at our meeting) and
perhaps would have provided advise that she should not have
proceeded with the proposed transfer. What would improve this
section is some theory and thinking about the ethical
perspective of the author – for example if this author concluded
that they operated from a utilitarian perspective where the
consequences of the actions would benefit most parties more
than harm them this would provide additional insight into why
they acted as they did. Reflection here about someone
operating from a different perspective – maybe Egoism might
conclude that a different course of action would have resulted
as this view point does not consider the consequences of the
actions prior to acting, rather whether the actions were taken
with the best intent. Comment by Jane Summers: This shows
reflection – thinking about the evens and deconstructing each
stage to review what happened, why the parties behaved as they
did.
Secondly, I was too willing to accept what Fiona said as being
the truth based on the same biases as raised previously. I failed
to ascertain properly the mental capacity of Mary, instead, just
accepting the opinion of Paul and Fiona that Mary still had
capacity to sign the transfer. I was conflicted over the issue of
stopping Christine from taking the house from the grandparents
and therefore rushing through with the transfer of the house,
with the alternative of taking the time to obtain a medical report
on Mary’s mental state and in the interim being exposed to the
risk that Christine attempt to take the house. Once again this
part could be strengthened with theory and reflection on
different ethical perspectives and why the author was so
influenced by this scenario feeling the need to cut corners and
take actions that they knew were not entirely correct to avoid an
outcome that they were not even certain would/could eventuate.
Thirdly, I considered what was proposed as right, as it would

5. have stopped Christine getting the house. Fiona advised me
Christine was a drug user. I took my own biased view about
drug users, that I would prefer to see a non-drug user such as
Fiona own the house, hence rushed through the transfer process.
Needs more theory here to deconstruct this reflection
Fourthly, I believed that what was proposed was morally right
as it would have protected two older and frail people in the
community over the interests of a drug user. Some discussion
here about the difference between morals and ethics and
personal bias and perspective would strengthen this point and
provide more insight for the final conclusion section.
The consequences for everyone involved were varied. Both
Fiona and I were interviewed by the police as suspects in a
fraud against the grandparents. We were both cleared after the
investigation. The court case between Christine (as Paul’s
guardian) and Fiona went to trial. The house was ordered to be
sold and the proceeds divided equally between Paul and Fiona.
Each of them was ordered to pay their own legal costs.
The outcome initially sought to be achieved, that is, for the
grandparents to live in their own home until they died failed.
Paul was left without a place to live and forced to rent a small
unit. Fiona did not get the house as a gift.
Locke, Rousseau and Kant (Reiman 2014 p14) all considered
that property limits non-owners liberty. As Mary and Paul were
clients, I should have given increased importance to the ethical
issues in particular the need for a medical report on Mary, as
the impact of my actions potentially affected their liberty. The
actions meant they had no rights to bequeath the house in their
wills and Fiona could have forced them to leave the property.
However, it could be argued that even though Mary’s actual
consent was not obtained, I still acted ethically in this case as
there was theoretical consent. Theoretical consent can equal
actual consent where a critical decision needed to be made and
it would be rational for Mary to consent. (Reiman 2014 p 21)
This is similar to what Cohen calls putative consent, which I
consider I had as I knew something about Mary, they told me

6. about her health, that she needs a house to live in, that she
loved Fiona hence the gift and wanted the gift to go ahead.
(Cohen 2014 p111).
When reflecting on the impact on property rights, one could
argue I should have considered the impact of what happened on
the rights of Christine. The strict view of Reiman would see
Fiona’s right to property as a restriction on the natural right of
liberty of Christine hence needing her consent as well as Paul’s
and Mary’s.(Reiman 2014 p 18). I disagree and consider that
there is no fiduciary duty owed to Christine to seek her consent.
A fiduciary duty to a client is provided for at law, these are
moral duties. I can’t have a fiduciary to two opposing views so
there would be no moral duty to Christine. In this regard I agree
with Marcoux that you can’t have a fiduciary duty to a
stakeholder. (Marcoux 2014 p 116)
I raise this issue because Stakeholder Theory says that that you
should take stakeholders views into account not just
shareholders. (Etzioni 2014 p90). This theory, it could be
argued, extends to non-clients of lawyers who will be impacted
by the actions of a legal corporation. An example of this is the
duty a lawyer has in the discovery of documents process. In
court proceedings there must be full and frank disclosure of
documents in possession by each side even if its disclosure is to
your detriment. Failure to do so is both unethical and illegal.
However, I do not consider stakeholder theory applies to the
facts of this case as at the time Christine was only a
potential/possible opposing party, not actual.
By reflecting on this process it is apparent that I took a
conservative liberal view that Christine entered the decision
making process indirectly only as a potential legal claim when I
addressed Fiona’s concerns about the transfer being set
aside.(Goodpaster 2014 p 100)
The ethical approach I took was act utilitarian. I treated this as
a single act and based moral judgement on the amount of
pleasure the act caused. I saw this as the greatest pleasure for
the greatest number (Fiona, Paul and Mary’s happiness versus

7. Christine’s). I took a consequentialist approach. My self interest
in the matter was for the client to be happy with the outcome
which could lead them to come back to me for legal work in the
future or refer other clients to my firm. I gave no conscious
thought to the ethical approach I was taking at the time. Small
business, which I was in, differs in attention given to ethics
from large business. I do not raise this as an excuse but a fact
“These differences include lack of time and resources managers
have available to focus on ethics and their informal trust based
approach to managing ethics” (Crane & Matten 2010 p15-16).
Comment by Jane Summers: This last section is very good
and see how theory has informed the reflection and added to the
understanding of the roles and actions of the various parties.
Personal conclusions Comment by Jane Summers: This
section is your learnings. In this section you would write about
what you learned from this experience and from this post event
reflection. How, now with the benefit of more knowledge
(theory) and experience you may or may not act in the same way
if faced with the same experience again. What would you do
differently, how do you now feel about this situation and how
can you support yourself and others better as a consequence of
thinking about this event, what should be your next action?
What did I learn from reflecting on this event? The main part of
learning is to detect and correct errors. The best way is to step
back consider, what we actually are doing and the impact of this
on others. This is called double loop learning a concept
developed by Argyris (Smith2001 p8). I have learnt that taking
a consequentialist view is not appropriate for lawyers. You need
to consider the steps you take to reach the conclusion and
ensure that they are ethical. By reflecting on this experience I
consider that the ethical approach I should have taken and
would adopt in future would be to adopt a virtue ethics
approach and attempt to be excellent in all I do. (Boylan 2014 p
5)
If faced with the same experience I would insist on Fiona

8. instructing her own lawyer. I would also meet with Mary and
insist on her obtaining a medical report as to her mental
capacity. This would ensure that there is no possible undue
influence by Fiona over the grandparents and would ensure in
my mind, Mary had proper mental capacity.
I have mixed feelings about this matter after the reflective
process and considering the ethical issues involved I would not
put the needs and wants of a client above what is ethical, so no
taking short cuts and not a win at all costs approach.
Reflection has highlighted to me that taking a utilitarian
approach is not always best. In my view no one ethical theory is
best for every situation, however, I consider in the case of a
lawyer and despite wanting the best for your client, there is an
overriding obligation to society to act ethically in what you do
because that is what society expects of persons in positions of
trust such as lawyers. Taking a utilitarian approach is not the
approach to take in dealing with legal matters. The virtue ethics
approach where efforts to do the best in all you do, would if
adopted in this case not have led to the adverse consequences
taking place and one I would adopt in future.
By adopting a virtue ethics approach in dealing with ethical
matters as a lawyer it will be advantageous as it can lead to an
improved reputation in legal circles that you can be trusted in
negotiations and in how you conduct yourself in cases against
opposing firms.
Aside from dealing with legal matters in future I would consider
it best to review constantly the ethical approach taken in all
decision making as I do not consider one approach fits every
situation.
Recommendation Comment by Jane Summers: This final
section now requires you to extrapolate this experience and
reflection to the wider workplace. What can/should be done in
the workplace to help with this issue in the future (be specific),
what theory have you read in this semester that could assist here
is suggestions and recommendations?

9. Having thought about and reflected on this scenario, I would
advise all young and inexperienced lawyers in my firm and in
firms where I work to explore and reflect on their own biases
and ethical perspectives early in their career. I would advise
legal workplaces to conduct some training for new lawyers to
expose them to the possible issues of not understanding and
thinking about their ethical biases when practicing law. It is
essential that people in the legal profession remove themselves
emotionally from the scenarios they are dealing with and stay
true to the intent of the law, which is to protect the rights and
obligations of all parties, even if that process appears to cause
roadblocks and difficulties at the time.
This section could have been more detailed and some theory
could have added to the strength of the suggestions made here –
some reference to workplace ethics would help.
List of References
Boylan, Michael 2014, Business Ethics, 2nd edn, Wiley-
Blackwell, West Sussex.
Cohen, S 2014, ‘Stakeholders Consent’, in M Boylan (ed)
Business Ethics pp. 108-113.
Crane, A & Matten, D 2010, Business Ethics: managing
corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of
globalization, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Etzioni, A 2014, 'The corporation as a community: Stakeholder
Theory Corporations as Communities’, in M Boylan (ed)
Business Ethics pp. 87-94.
Goodpaster, K 2014, ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder
Analysis’, in M Boylan (ed) Business Ethics pp. 95-107
Raelin, J.A. 2002 “I don’t have time to think!” versus the art of
reflective practice, Reflections, volume 4, No 1, p 66.
Reiman, J 2014 ‘Maxian Liberalism’, in M Boylan (ed)
Business Ethics pp13-31.
Smith, M.K. 2001, 2013, Chris Argyris: theories of action,
double loop learning and organisational learning, viewed 24
July 2014, http://infed-org/mobi/chris-argysis-theories-of-
action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning.

10. General comments:
Note that the reflection was written in the first person – it was
about a particular incident that this person experienced. They
have explored and discussed their emotional reactions and state,
accepted and explored their personal biases and how these
impacted their actions and provided insights into the motives
and viewpoints of the players in this scenario.
Note their use of theory to support and deconstruct the issues –
note also where they could have improved this process.
Note: the essay shows clear evidence of learning. We can see
that through the reflection process the author has learned, has
worked out what should have been done differently and now has
a strategy for dealing with these sorts of issues in the future.
This is a critical part of this assignment. We need to see this
evidence of learning and growth through an understanding of
how ethical awareness impacts actions and decisions made in
the workplace.
1
Assignment 2 – Ethical essay and critical reflection
Description
Marks out of
Due date
Word limit
Assignment 2
100
15 October 2015
3,000
Background
Reflective writing is the evidence of reflective thinking and
reflective thinking is part of the critical thinking process where
people analyse, evaluate and make judgements about behaviour,
events, experiences and outcomes to make sense of what
happened and to learn how to do things differently in future

11. situations. The practice of reflective thinking will be introduced
in this assessment task along with critical analysis skills for
determining ethical conflicts and how to deal with them in a
business context.
Reflective thinking is an intellectual exercise that not only
requires people to think about past happenings, but to also
identify and acknowledge how their personal bias, beliefs and
assumptions impact the process. This course has exposed you
to the realisation that different ethical perspectives or models
exist and that there is a need to bridge the gap between
Normative Ethics and Applied Ethics in everyday business
practice. Business people often become so enmeshed in the
practice of business that they lose the ability to discern and
react to possible ethical dilemmas and they can forget that
different ethical perspectives will result in different and
justifiable courses of action in the workplace.
This assessment requires you to demonstrate the development of
techniques required to evaluate and comment on business
scenarios in terms of their surface and deep ethical issues. This
assessment task presents you with a case study and asks you to
consider the different ethical issues and conflicts presented and
to prepare a position paper on the issue to those in more senior
roles. In order to do this however you first need to have
developed an understanding of your own personal ethical theory
and how this influences how you perceive and interpret
information.
Step 1 – Identify your own ethical perspective or theory and the
principals associated with it
The first step in being able to deeply evaluate and critique a
potential ethical dilemma is to have a sound understanding of
your own ethical theory or perspective. Whilst the process of
developing an ethical theory perspective can take years, in this
course you have been exposed to the work of many great
thinkers and practioners in this area. The process of choosing
and recognising your own personal ethical theory requires
introspection and evaluation to determine what you think is best

12. and the most correct theory for most applied situations. This
process forms the first stage of this assessment task. You are to
write a personal reflection of your thinking, of your reading and
of your testing the various moral and ethical maxims presented
to you in this course to reach a conclusion about your personal
ethical theory. What ethical model you subscribe to and why?
How your background, religion, culture and experiences have
led you to this conclusion.
This course has presented you with normative theories of ethics
as a starting point for your reflective journey. These have been
further divided into consequentialist (Egoism and
Utilitarianism) and non-consequentialist (Deontological – Kant
& Ross) theories as well as the concepts of Virtue Ethics and
Duty of Care. Read about each of these perspectives in some
detail and think about their overriding principles and the views
of these different approaches in relation to ethical thinking and
practice. Decide which one you think best reflects your
thinking about ethics, right and wrong and professional
practice.
For example if you are inclined to view reality as an extension
of evolutionary biology or that group advantage immediately
entails a moral aught, then you have a tendency to lean toward
Utilitarianism. If, on the other hand you think that people
should act from pure duty alone without reference to anything
except the rightness of the action then a Deontological
perspective fits more with your thinking. Finally if you consider
yourself a communitarian where you believe that specific
virtues such as courage, wisdom, self-control and piety
consistently exist across every society then you are likely to
choose Virtue Ethics as your model. To assist you in this task
the first stage of this assessment requires you to complete the
following task:
Consider the following scenario:
You are on the executive committee of the XYZ Corporation of
health care professionals. Each year the committee gives and
award to one of its members who display high moral character

13. in his or her work. This year you are among the four judges
who will determine the recipient of the award. There is some
disagreement among the judges. However. About what
constitutes a good person? The judges, besides yourself, are Ms
Smith, Mrs. Taylor and Mr Jones. The candidates for the award
are Mr Little and Mrs Big.
Ms Smith thinks that the award should go to Mrs Big because
she saved a man from drowning. However Mr Jones does not
agree. He has suggested that Mrs Big’s motives are suspect
because the man she saved was in the midst of a very big
financial deal with Mrs Big. If he had drowned Mrs Big would
have lost a lot of money. Ms Smith has suggested that the
motives for the action are not important nor of relevance to this
judging as it is the goodness of the act that should count and the
man who was saved runs a large business that employs many
people. In her mind many people besides Mrs Big would have
been harmed if Mrs Big had not saved the man.
Mr Jones wants the award to go to Mr Little because he
performed a kind act of charity in chairing the town’s United
Way Campaign last year and raised thousands of dollars toward
improving the town’s schools for everyone to share. Surely
such an act could not be said to have benefits Mr Little in any
way – unlike Mrs Big.
Mrs Taylor is unsure about whether Mrs Big or Mr Little should
get the award as they have both been recommended on the basis
of one single good act. Mrs Taylor believes it would be better
to choose a candidate who has shown over time to have
performed many good actions and to be of good character.
After all, she says, ‘a single swallow does not make a spring!”.
Mrs Smith and Mr Jones scratched their heads at this remark
and turned to you to make a decision. Who is right and what do
you decide?
1. Describe how you might approach this situation using a
consequentialist view, a non-consequentialist view and a virtue
ethics view showing clearly how the decision would differ using
each different perspective and why?

14. 2. State your own assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of
each theory or approach; and
3. Make a conclusion from this exercise about which approach
would be most consistent with your personal worldview or your
own personal ethical theory perspective and why. You are then
to use this perspective as the lens to consider the next scenario.
Step 2 – Using your understanding of your own ethical theory,
find the conflicts and identify the professional practice issues
versus the ethical issues in this business scenario.
You are the operations manager for XYZ Sports Apparel. This
company has recently opened a factory in Guadalajara, Mexico
to make various casual sports apparel. Your product advantage
is that XYZ’s clothes are impregnated with a special chemical
that will completely block harmful UV radiation from sunlight.
This will protect the wearers from developing melanoma from
long-term exposure to sunlight through the pursuit of outdoor
activities.
The problem is that this chemical has been anecdotally linked to
miscarriages. Your company has met all of Mexico’s published
safety standards even though the chemical has not been
approved in the Australia or the USA and is banned in Europe.
You believe that there is not enough conclusive evidence to
suggest that exposure to this chemical will result in increased
risk of miscarriage in pregnant women who wear the clothing.
There is however, considerable evidence that melanoma is the
number one cause of skin cancer deaths in the USA and in
Australia. The potential “health” benefit appeal will be
tremendously profitable for the company and there are no laws
being broken in any country by manufacturing this product.
In spite of this your management team is still concerned. You
have been asked to write a memo to your vice president of
marketing in the US home office with your recommendations
about what the company should do. In your memo you will
need to justify your view with your own ethical theory, your
view on the rights and responsibilities of an organisation (does
it have the same rights and responsibilities as an individual?)

15. and any other practical and ethical considerations particularly
the likely costs involved to make changes to this practice now.
Format
Your total essay and critical reflection should be no more than
3,000 words in length and take the format as described below.
Section 1 – Your own personal reflection and identification of
your personal ethical theory using the scenario provided. This
should be approximately 1,000 words and should include
appropriate ethical theory to support your thinking.
Section 2 – Write a memo as outlined in the second scenario
(approximately 2,000 words), addressed to the Marketing
Manager of XYZ Sports Apparel with your recommendation
about this scenario. In your memo you need to ensure you:
1) Identify and justify the ethical issues presented in the case
supported by your own ethical theory (from section 1) and
appropriate theory;
2) Identify and differentiate professional practice issues from
the ethical issues in the case, using appropriate theory to
support your claims;
3) Ensure you have clearly outlined your view on what is a
corporation and what its ethical rights and responsibilities
should be using appropriate theory; and
4) Your final recommendations for what the company should do.
Marking Criteria for Assignment 2
Below the required standard
0 – 49%
Meets the required standard
50 – 65%
Exceeds the required standard
66 – 85%

16. Far exceeds the required standard
86 – 100%
Section 1 - Self-reflection of ethical theory (40 marks) : Did
the student:
· Describe how they approached this situation showing clearly
how the decision would differ using each different perspective
and why using:
· a consequentialist view,
· a non-consequentialist view; and
· a virtue ethics view.
· State their own assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of
each theory or approach; and
· Make a conclusion from this exercise about which approach
was the most consistent with their personal worldview and why.
(0 – 19 marks)
(20 – 26 marks)
(27 – 34 marks)
(35 – 40 marks)
Section 2 - Case Evaluation (40 marks): Did the student:
· Provide insight into their own personal beliefs/biases/values
and ethical perspectives and show how this has influenced their
evaluation of event and its outcomes as developed in section 1;
· Identify and differentiate professional practice issues from the
ethical issues in the case, using appropriate theory to support
claims;
· clearly outline their view on what is a corporation and what its
ethical rights and responsibilities should be using appropriate
theory; and
· provide recommendations that considered both the ethical and
professional practice issues in this case?
· Appropriate theoretical support for their recommendations.
· Evidence of further reading and research on this topic to
inform their recommendations
(0 – 24 marks)

17. (25 – 32 marks)
(33 – 42 marks)
(43 – 50 marks)
Below the required standard
0 – 49%
Meets the required standard
50 – 65%
Exceeds the required standard
66 – 85%
Far exceeds the required standard
86 – 100%
Use of Theory to support the discussion (20 marks): Did the
student:
· provide evidence through this assignment that they had
learned from their reflection and reading of ethical theory;
· provide adequate and relevant theoretical support and
information to support their evaluation and discussion; and
· provide evidence of deep reflection and critical thinking
(0 – 9 marks)
(10 – 13 marks)
(14 – 17 marks)
(18 – 20 marks)
Total marks /100
Format and Presentation – deduct up to 10 marks
If the student did not provide their assignment in the required
essay format, evidencing an appropriate level and mastery of
written communication and referencing style and by the due
date.

18. General Feedback: