CWV 101 Ethical Dilemma Essay Guide
Six headings, one scenario, and two worldviews that have to be compared. Describing only the Christian one is the most common way this essay loses half its marks.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Six underlined headings, and the comparison is the assignment
The assignment fixes its own structure and says to use the underlined titles as headings, which removes any question about organisation and leaves the intellectual work exposed. The heart of it is comparison: the case is analysed from the Christian worldview AND from your own worldview assumptions, and both have to be stated. Essays that describe the Christian position and add a sentence of personal reaction have written half the paper. Your worldview is not the absence of one — it rests on assumptions about where moral authority comes from, what a human being is, and what makes an action right, and naming those is what makes the comparison possible. Whether the two agree is not the point. Two worldviews frequently reach the same action for different reasons, and showing that the reasoning differs while the conclusion converges is a stronger paper than manufacturing disagreement.
Work the sections in the order given. The ethical dilemma section asks two things: what makes the decision difficult, and at least two options with the kind of ethical decision each represents — so you need to be able to say that one option is consequentialist and another duty-based, or that one prioritises autonomy and another protection. Core beliefs means the Christian worldview's specific claims about God and humanity that bear on this case: the imago Dei, human dignity as intrinsic rather than earned, stewardship, fallenness, and grace. Name the ones that actually do work here rather than listing all of them. The resolution section should follow from the beliefs already stated rather than arriving beside them, and the evaluation section should be honest about the comparison: which worldview handles this case better, and what it costs to hold that view. A paper that finds one worldview flawless has not evaluated anything.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01State two worldviews explicitly, including your own assumptions.
- 02Identify what makes a case a dilemma rather than a difficulty.
- 03Connect specific Christian worldview beliefs to a case resolution.
- 04Evaluate both worldviews honestly, including the cost of the one you prefer.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01The chosen scenario, named.
- 02What makes the decision difficult and at least two options with their ethical types.
- 03Core beliefs about God and humanity relevant to the case.
- 04A resolution following from those beliefs.
- 05A comparison with your own worldview assumptions.
- 06An evaluation, using the six underlined headings, in 1,000-1,500 words.
Dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, comparison, evaluation
Ethical dilemma
Say what makes the decision hard and give two options with their ethical types.
Core beliefs
Name the Christian worldview claims relevant to this case.
Resolution
Derive a course of action from those beliefs.
Your worldview assumptions
State your own source of moral authority and view of the person.
Comparison
Compare the two on reasoning as well as on conclusion.
Evaluation
Judge which handles the case better and at what cost.
Sources for both worldviews, not just one
Recommended databases
- The assigned course text
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- GCU library resources
- Bioethics references
Search sequence
- 1.Read the five scenarios and choose the one where you can name a real dilemma.
- 2.Get the Christian worldview claims from the course text so they match the course.
- 3.Read a survey of the ethical framework your own view relies on.
- 4.Look up the principle framework if the case is clinical.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Deontological Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2020
Duty-based reasoning, one of the ethical types your options should be classified against.
- 02
Virtue Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022
Virtue ethics, which maps closely onto character-based worldview claims.
- 03
Patient Rights and Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, US National Library of Medicine · 2023
The principle framework used in clinical ethics cases.
- 04
Death
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2024
A philosophical treatment of the end-of-life questions several scenarios raise.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Describing the Christian worldview and omitting your own assumptions.
- Listing core beliefs without connecting any to the case.
- Manufacturing disagreement between the two worldviews where none exists.
- Ignoring the required headings, which the assignment specifies.
Submission checklist
- Are your own worldview assumptions stated explicitly?
- Does each option come with the kind of ethical decision it represents?
- Do the core beliefs you name actually bear on this case?
- Are the six underlined titles used as headings?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.