This manual is for PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 3, start to submission. A closing assessment in an ethics course usually asks for comparison: two traditions brought to the same case, with the reason they part company explained. The assessment usually asks which feature of the case makes one emphasis more appropriate, which is a harder question than describing both theories in turn. There is also the option of handing it over, a premium original sample running both traditions at equal depth, back inside 24 to 48 hours and revised free. Your courseroom may print this as PHI FPX 2000 Assessment 3 or PHI2000 Assessment 3; it is the same deliverable, and PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 3 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 3 is scored
Criteria are graded one by one at one of four levels, and that wording is the specification you write against:
| Level | What it means on a comparative ethics paper |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | Each tradition's decisive feature identified, the difference between the two explained by that feature, and the choice of framework argued from something in the case. |
| Proficient | Both traditions applied correctly and the difference between them described. |
| Basic | Two summaries placed side by side and a closing preference. The commonest shape a comparison row receives. |
| Non-performance | A required element absent, usually the second framework applied to the same facts. |
A comparison row is not asking for two summaries. It is asking why two serious traditions look at one case and disagree, and the productive answer is that each treats a different feature of the case as decisive. Name those features and the comparison writes itself.
The PHI-FPX2000 Assessment 3 method, step by step
-
Turn the guide into headings and check what the comparison row wants
Some guides want two frameworks applied and contrasted, others want one applied and a second used only to test it. Read the row rather than assuming, because a paper that runs two full analyses where one was wanted usually runs both of them thin.
-
Apply both to the same facts, at the same depth
Unequal treatment is the commonest fault here: one theory gets a procedure and the other gets a paragraph. Give both the same case, the same level of detail and the same willingness to reach an uncomfortable answer, so the difference you report is a difference in the theories rather than in your effort.
-
Name the virtue and locate it between two failures
A virtue account asks what somebody of good character would do holding this position, which means naming the virtue and the two failures it sits between. Honesty sits between concealment and a tactlessness that serves nobody, and courage between recklessness and timidity. The role matters, because what a coach owes differs from what a parent owes.
-
Find the decisive feature in each tradition
Consequentialist reasoning treats outcomes as what makes an action right. Duty-based reasoning treats the form of the rule as decisive, which is why it can forbid an act that would produce a better result. Virtue ethics asks what the choice makes of the person making it. Say which feature each one is looking at and the disagreement stops being mysterious.
-
Argue the framework choice from the case
Say what it is about these facts that makes one emphasis more apt: a fixed resource shared among strangers, a right at stake against a majority benefit, a person acting inside a role over time. Selecting a theory because it delivers the verdict you wanted is the one approach that reliably fails.
-
Answer the objection each side would make, then self-score
Give the other tradition its reply to your conclusion, briefly and fairly. Then read the draft against every row, mark your own levels, and submit early enough that a two-business-day review does not cost you the session.
A structure that maps to the criteria
These are our tutors' planning targets for a comparative deliverable, not Capella rules; wherever your guide asks for a different balance, follow it.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The case | The facts stated neutrally, with the role of the decision maker and what the role obliges made explicit. | ~160 words |
| First framework applied | The theory in its author's terms, run on these facts, to the conclusion it supports. | ~280 words |
| Second framework applied | The same facts through the other tradition, at equal depth, to its own conclusion. | ~280 words |
| Why they part company | The feature each tradition treats as decisive, and why those features differ here. | ~240 words |
| The choice, argued | Which emphasis fits this case and what in the facts makes it fit, with the other side's reply. | ~220 words |
| Sources and format | Primary texts by edition and translation, plus applied ethics scholarship, current APA. | as needed |
Annotated sample excerpt
An original excerpt from our team showing how a comparison earns its conclusion. Read it for the structure, then run both traditions on the case your own criteria name.
The two analyses reach different answers, and the reason is not that one is more forgiving; it is that each treats a different feature of the case as decisive.1 The consequentialist account looks at what follows, and in a friendly with no standings at stake the harm from one ineligible substitution is small enough that the balance can tilt toward the boy who has attended every practice.2 The virtue account will not look there, because it asks what the choice makes of a coach: honesty in this role sits between concealment and a bluntness that serves nobody, and the excess here is not honesty but the loyalty that has grown large enough to override it, which is why the person of good character tells the boy why he cannot play instead of quietly playing him, and why the deciding feature is the role rather than the scoreline.3
- 1States the thesis of the comparison in one sentence, and refuses the lazy explanation that one theory is simply stricter.
- 2Gives the consequentialist reading its strongest form rather than a weak one, so the contrast that follows is between two real positions.
- 3Names the virtue, places it between an excess and a deficiency, identifies the role as the decisive feature, and lands on an action. Arguing the framework from a feature of the case is the top-column move.
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
- Two summaries with a preference at the end. Describing both traditions and then choosing one is not a comparison, and the row that pays for it stays empty.
- Unequal application. A procedure for one theory and a paragraph for the other means the reported difference is in the writing, not the theories.
- A virtue named without its extremes. The mean sits between an excess and a deficiency, and both have to be on the page for the analysis to work.
- The role ignored. What a person owes depends on the position they hold, and a virtue analysis with no role in it has nothing to be about.
- A framework chosen for its verdict. Picking the theory that delivers the answer you wanted is visible in the order of the paragraphs.
Pre-submission checklist
- The comparison row is read carefully and answered in the form it asks for
- Both traditions are applied to the same facts at the same depth
- The virtue is named with its excess and its deficiency
- The decisive feature of each tradition is stated explicitly
- The framework choice is argued from something in the case
- Primary texts cited by edition and translation, APA matched both ways
Comparison due and the two theories keep agreeing?
Send the criteria and the case, and say which traditions your course materials name. The sample runs both at equal depth, explains the disagreement by the feature each one treats as decisive, and argues the choice from the facts. Returned inside 24 to 48 hours, with rework continuing at no cost until the guide is clear.