Just a quick question.

[TechnicallyDead]

I was just wondering how to structure an answer to an ethics question?

Ive been answering it by;
1) Explain what wrong
2) Explain the affected parties
3) Then i'm stuck :/
~Do i state, how to resolve the situation?
~Do i also state other laws the the solution is breaching?
~Something else im completely missing?

Thanks in advance

[silverpixeli]

Well it obviously depends on the question, but one I got today gave a scenario where a software developer had made a program but hadnt added security, and his employer wanted to launch it right then for his online customer base, it asked what the dilemma the programmer was facing was, and I answered:

On one hand, ___ could agree to (launch the software like his boss told him to do) but this would (jeopardise the integrity of data processed by the solution, putting its users at risk and potentially violating the Privacy Act)
On the other hand, ___ could disagree and (refuse to launch the software until security measures were added) but this would (put his employment at risk since his employer demanded the solution be launched straight away)

The stuff in brackets is what you would replace with the relevant stuff from whatever scenario they gave you, I think the focus on ethics questions isn't about laws or resolution, it has a focus on identifying the DILEMMA (dilemma means decision between two non-preferable options) And by identifying these options in an 'on one hand/on the other hand' framework you're making it really clear that you know what the two alternatives are, why they are ethically non-preferable and who is involved.

As I said before, depends on the question, don't just copypaste this wherever you see the word ethics, but I think it's the emphasis of most ethics questions, especially if they ask about the dilemma specifically. If it doesnt seem to be asking about a dilemma, I think you have all that is needed anyway; explaining what is wrong, why and who it effects.

[MJRomeo81]

Depends on the structure of the question. Most questions usually require a) Explaining the breach of ethics, b) the relevant legislation, and c) Possible resolution strategies.

[TechnicallyDead]

If it doesnt seem to be asking about a dilemma, I think you have all that is needed anyway; explaining what is wrong, why and who it effects.

And

Depends on the structure of the question. Most questions usually require a) Explaining the breach of ethics, b) the relevant legislation, and c) Possible resolution strategies.

Thanks so much. Just been wondering if i have been going about these questions correctly.

So this structure - if followed and made relevant to the scenario at hand - will award the full marks?

[silverpixeli]

I'm hesitant in promising anyone full marks, but as long as you answer what the question asks then I don't see where you could lose marks. I have a feeling the examiners have a list of what they're looking for in each question, like what points to award marks for, and the comparative structure above lets you make it really clear that you understand what a dilemma is which is something that has been commented on in past exam reports. It definitely depends on the question, though.

[TechnicallyDead]

Thank you very much. :D