This manual is for PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 2, start to submission. A middle assessment in an ethics course often moves to a duty-based framework, where the rule rather than the outcome decides. The assessment usually asks you to state a maxim, test whether it could hold universally, and check the action against the requirement that persons be treated as ends rather than merely as means. If you would rather hand it off, a premium original sample stating and testing your maxim returns inside 24 to 48 hours, with revision included until every criterion is satisfied. Your courseroom may print this as PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 2 or PHI2000 Assessment 2; it is the same deliverable, and PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 2 is what this manual walks through.
One honesty note before the manual: Capella revises courses and scoring guides over time, so always write to the exact scoring guide attached to your assessment in the courseroom. The course identity above is verified on capella.edu; the method and structure below are our tutors' approach to it, not Capella's official rubric text.
How PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 2 is scored
Every criterion is graded separately on a four-level scale, and the wording of the level is your brief:
| Level | What it means on a duty-based ethics analysis |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | A maxim written at the right level of generality, both tests actually run, and the result reported even where it is inconvenient. |
| Proficient | The maxim stated and the tests applied correctly to the case. |
| Basic | A claim that the theory forbids or permits the action, with the tests skipped. Where a first attempt at a maxim usually lands. |
| Non-performance | A required element absent, most often the universalization test. |
The characteristic failure in a duty-based paper is a maxim written so narrowly that it universalizes without difficulty. Folding your own circumstances into the rule defeats the test you were running, and an evaluator who knows the theory reads for that first. Write the rule at the level anybody in your position would be acting on.
The PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 2 method, step by step
-
Map the criteria and separate description from application
Rows here often ask you to explain the theory and then to use it, and the explanation row is not satisfied by the application. Give each its own heading and keep the theory paragraph free of the case, so a reader can see you know the framework independently of this situation.
-
Write the maxim as a rule of action
A maxim states what you propose to do and why, in a form somebody else in your position could act on. Test the wording: if it names your employer, your deadline or your particular need, it is too narrow and the universalization test will pass trivially. Broaden it until it describes the kind of act rather than your instance of it.
-
Run the universalization test properly
Ask whether a world in which everybody acted on that rule would still contain the thing the rule depends on. Some maxims fail because the practice they rely on would collapse, and others fail because a rational agent could not consistently will the result. Say which kind of failure you found, because that distinction is frequently the difference between the top two columns.
-
Run the second test on persons
Ask whether anybody in the case is being used merely as a means, meaning treated as an instrument without regard to their own ends. Consent is the usual hinge, and the honest question is whether the consent given was informed and freely available or produced by the position the person was in.
-
Report the result even where you dislike it
Applying a framework is procedural: you adopt its assumptions, follow its method and report where it leads. If the result offends you, that reaction is usable material for the evaluation row, where you can say precisely which feature of the theory produced the answer you cannot accept. That is a real objection and stronger than declining the method.
-
Cite the text, then self-score
Quote the formulation from the Groundwork with the translation and edition named, because the wording differs between translators and a criterion about accuracy can turn on it. Then grade every row yourself, repair anything below the top level, and submit early enough for a two-business-day review.
A structure that maps to the criteria
Planning targets our tutors use for a duty-based analysis, not Capella requirements; the scoring guide in your courseroom decides.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The case | The action being considered, by whom, and what the person is being asked or tempted to do. | ~160 words |
| The framework | The theory in its author's terms, with both formulations quoted from the text and dated. | ~240 words |
| The maxim | The rule of action stated at the right generality, with a note on why it is not narrower. | ~200 words |
| The universalization test | The test run, the result, and which kind of failure or success it produced. | ~280 words |
| The test on persons | Whether anybody is used merely as a means, with consent examined rather than assumed. | ~250 words |
| Conclusion, objection and format | The verdict, the strongest objection to it, your answer, and current APA both ways. | ~200 words |
Annotated sample excerpt
A model excerpt from our team showing a maxim written at a level that can actually be tested. Study it, then write your own around the action your prompt describes.
The maxim under test is not that I may draft this letter because my supervisor is busy and I know my own work best; that version folds my circumstances into the rule and would pass any test trivially.1 Stated at the level an agent actually acts on, the rule is that a person may compose the assessment of their own work that another person will present as an independent judgment.2 Universalized, that rule destroys the thing it depends on: a reference letter is worth reading only because a reader believes somebody other than the applicant wrote it, so in a world where everybody acted on the maxim the letter would carry no information and nobody would ask for one, which means the maxim cannot be willed universally without defeating its own purpose, and the second formulation adds that the supervisor is being used as a signature rather than as a judge.3
- 1Rejects the narrow version out loud and says why. Naming the temptation to over-specify is what shows the writer understands the test rather than performing it.
- 2States the maxim as a kind of act, with no names, deadlines or excuses inside it. This sentence is the one the rest of the analysis is judged against.
- 3Runs the test to a specific collapse, identifies which kind of failure it is, and then applies the second formulation in one clause. Naming the type of failure is the top-column detail.
The full premium sample for your exact assessment, written fresh to your scoring guide and issue, is free to request. Study it, revise it into your own voice, and submit work you understand.
The five mistakes that cost Distinguished
- A maxim written narrowly enough to pass. Folding your own situation into the rule defeats the test, and it is the first thing an evaluator checks.
- The universalization test asserted rather than run. Saying a rule could not be universal is a claim; showing what collapses is the argument.
- The second formulation skipped. Duty-based analysis has two tests, and a paper that runs one has answered half the row.
- Consent assumed because nobody objected. Silence produced by a position of dependence is not the same as consent freely given, and the case usually turns on that difference.
- A quotation with no translation named. The wording of the formulation differs between translators, and accuracy rows can turn on which one you used.
Pre-submission checklist
- Theory and application sit in separate labeled sections
- The maxim names a kind of act with no personal circumstances inside it
- The universalization test is run to a specific result and its type named
- The test on persons is applied and consent examined rather than assumed
- The verdict is reported even where the writer dislikes it
- Primary text cited with translation and edition, APA matched both ways
Duty-based analysis due and the maxim keeps sliding?
Send the criteria and the case you were assigned. The draft states the maxim at the level that can be tested, runs both formulations against it, reports the result and answers the strongest objection. Eight people work the file, delivery is 24 to 48 hours, revision free until the guide is met.