PhilosophyEssayApplied ethics

Ethical reasoning final paper: applying an ethical theory

The third paper in a three-part sequence, with five prescribed headings and a requirement most students meet only half of: the objection must come from a different theory than the defence.

Aug 8, 2026Updated Aug 10, 2026

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 8, 2026

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

What do the five prescribed Part headings actually require?

The structural instruction that decides most of the grade is easy to skim past, because it is repeated five times in identical words: *place this section under the Part 3: Explanation and Defense heading*. The headings are prescribed literally — Part 1: Introduction, Part 2: Ethical Argument, Part 3: Explanation and Defense, Part 4: Objection and Response, Part 5: Conclusion — and a paper that invents its own headings has made a marker hunt for content that was supposed to be labelled. Set the five headings down in an empty document before writing a word. It also stops the single most common structural failure, which is theory leaking into Part 2, since a labelled section makes the leak visible to you as well. Write the conclusion's five sentences at the same time, one per heading, and you will notice immediately if a section has no accomplishment to describe.

**Two theories are required, and they must be different.** Part 3 explains and defends using the theory that aligns with your argument; Part 4 objects *by appealing to a different ethical theory than the one you focused on in Part 3*. Papers that argue from utilitarianism and then object from utilitarianism have not met the requirement, and they usually produce a weak objection as a by-product, because the strongest challenge to a consequentialist argument is rarely another consequentialist one. Decide the pairing early: a utilitarian argument invites a deontological objection about rights or duties that outcomes cannot override; a deontological argument invites a utilitarian objection about the cost of holding to a rule. Choosing the pairing early also protects the word count, because you then know which theory needs full exposition and which needs only its core principle.

Part 4 is where the marks are won and where self-sabotage is easiest. The brief asks for *the strongest objection you can*, and the instinct is to build a weak one so the response is comfortable. That instinct costs you twice: a feeble objection earns little in Part 4, and the response in Part 4 then has nothing to work against. Write the objection as though you believed it. Then note what the response actually has to establish — not that the objection is wrong in general, but that it is *not strong enough to undermine* your argument. Those are different claims, and the second is usually argued by limiting the objection's scope or showing your position survives the concession rather than by defeating it outright. A good check: if you can answer your own objection in a sentence, it is not yet the strongest objection you can make.

Do the word arithmetic before drafting, because 1,300 to 1,500 words has to carry five sections and two theory expositions. Part 3 alone wants the theory in general terms, a brief account of its historical background and the philosophers associated with it, its core moral ideal, how that ideal guides and constrains reasoning, *and* a demonstration that your Part 2 argument applies it. That section will run away from you if the history is not kept genuinely brief — a sentence or two on origin, not a biography. Part 4's exposition is smaller still: the brief says *briefly explain the core moral ideal or principle*, which is one paragraph, because Part 4's real work is the objection and the reply. The safest allocation is to draft Part 3 last, once the other four sections have taken the space they need, and then write the theory into whatever remains.

Two constraints on sources are stated precisely enough to be checked mechanically, so check them mechanically. At least **three scholarly resources**, of which **only one may be the textbook** — so at least two others. And a source counts only if it is cited *in the text* as well as listed on the reference page; entries appearing only in the references do not count toward the requirement. The brief goes further and says a bare citation is insufficient where it is unclear how the text supports your claim, so each source needs a quotation, summary or paraphrase doing visible work. Finally, note that reusing your Week 1 and Week 3 material is explicitly permitted — but the introduction *should be revised* to reflect your additional thinking, so pasting it unchanged reads as exactly what it is.

Requirement	What it means here	The paper that fails it
Five labelled sections	The brief's own heading text, verbatim	Headings invented to suit the essay
Part 2: Ethical Argument	The case itself, with no theory yet	Theory introduced two sections early
Part 3 theory	The one aligning with your argument	A theory chosen because it is easier
Part 4 theory	A different theory from Part 3	The same framework objecting to itself
Strongest objection	One you would find hard to answer	A weak objection built to be dismissed
The response	Not strong enough to undermine	Proving the objection wrong outright
Three scholarly sources	At most one is the textbook	Textbook plus two websites
Cited in text	Quoted, summarised or paraphrased	Listed on the reference page only

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

01
Construct a moral argument independently of the theory later used to defend it.
02
Explain a normative ethical theory and show a concrete argument applying it.
03
Generate the strongest available objection from a competing theoretical framework.
04
Respond to an objection by limiting its force rather than by dismissing it.

Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements. You should download the provided outline Preview the document and use that to structure your paper, and consult the assignment guidance Preview the document and modeled example Preview the document for additional help. Finally, before submitting your assignment please use the checklist Preview the document to ensure that you have completed all of the requirements. Overview This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning. In the Week 1 assignment, “Ethical Question,” you chose an ethical question, provided an introduction, a position statement and supporting reason, and an opposing position statement and supporting reason. In the Week 3 assignment, “Applying an Ethical Theory,” you explained utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, including its core moral principle or ideal, and applied that theory to the topic by demonstrating how its principles would support a particular position on your ethical question. In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your own position on an ethical question regarding that issue. This final written assignment should be written in essay form with the following clearly labeled sections: Applying an Ethical Theory Essay 2 Introduction Ethical Argument Explanation and Defense Objection and Response Conclusion The paper should be between 1,300 and 1,500 words, utilize three scholarly resources, and include a title page and reference page. Part 1: Introduction In this section of the paper, you will begin with your ethical question, introduce the topic and paper, and close with a thesis statement. The ethical question may be the same as your Week 3 written assignment (“Applying an Ethical Theory”) or a revised version of it. The introduction should be revised in a way that reflects your additional thinking on the issue and question. End this section with a thesis statement that states your position on the issue (the answer to the ethical question you believe is strongest) and provides a brief summary of the main ideas you will be presenting in the paper. Please see the assignment guidance for examples of thesis statements. Place the introduction under the Part 1: Introduction heading. Part 2: Ethical Argument In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest argument you can in support of the position you have stated in your introduction. This will be similar to the “supporting reasons” you offered in the first assignment; however, this argument should reflect your research into the key ethical issues that need to be identified and addressed, the arguments on different sides of this problem, and the theories of moral reasoning we have studied in the class (you will discuss the specific details and implications of the moral theories in the next two sections). You can think of this as a summary of the main argument you would give if you were an attorney trying to convince a jury of your position. Place this information under the Part 2: Ethical Argument heading. Part 3: Explanation and Defense In this section, you will explain and defend your argument by drawing on the moral theory that aligns most closely with the argument you presented in Part 2. This may be the same theory you discussed in your second assignment, but it may also be a different theory. You must first explain the theory in general terms similar to how you explained a theory in your second assignment, including a brief account of the historical background of the theory and the philosopher(s) associated with it and general overview of the core moral ideal or principle of the theory, including the way it guides and constrains moral reasoning. You should then clearly show how your argument represents an application of that form of moral reasoning. In other words, if the argument you present in Part 2 is utilitarian, deontological, or virtue-based (teleological), you will want to explain utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics in general terms, then explain how your argument from Part 2 reflects or draws upon the core principles and values of that theory. Please refer to the Week 3 assignment instructions for directions on how to explain and apply the moral theory. Place this section under the Part 3: Explanation and Defense heading. Part 4: Objection and Response In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest objection you can to your argument, and briefly defend that objection by appealing to a different ethical theory than the one you focused on in Part 3. Briefly explain the core moral ideal or principle of the theory and how that could be the basis of an objection to your argument. For instance, if you explained and defended your own argument by applying the principles of virtue ethics, you could raise an objection from the perspective of utilitarianism by briefly explaining the core utilitarian principle and how applying that principle could lead someone to a different conclusion than the one you are defending. Next, you should respond to the objection by explaining why it is not strong enough to undermine the main argument in defense of your position. See the assignment guidance for suggestions on how to effectively respond to the objection. Place this section under the Part 4: Objection and Response heading. Part 5: Conclusion In this section of the paper, provide a summary of what you have done in the paper by briefly describing what you accomplished in each of the above sections. Place this section under the Part 5: Conclusion heading. Applying an Ethical Theory Essay 2 Resource Requirement You must use at least three scholarly resources, only one of which may be the textbook. In other words, you must use at least two scholarly resources in addition to the textbook. Acceptable ways of using a source include providing a quotation, summary, or paraphrase; merely providing a citation, especially when it is unclear how or where the text supports your claim, is not sufficient. If you need help with finding additional resources or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor. For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page but not cited within the paper do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement. In your paper, Introduce the topic and paper. Provide a thesis statement. Present an argument in support of the position. Defend the argument by explaining and applying the ethical theory that most closely aligns with the argument. Present an objection to the argument by appealing to a different ethical theory. Respond to the objection. Provide a conclusion that describes what was accomplished in each of the sections of the paper. The Ethical Reasoning Final Paper Must be 1,300 to 1,500 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.)resource. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Applying an Ethical Theory Essay 2

What the 1,300–1,500 word ethics paper must contain

01
A 1,300–1,500 word essay, excluding title and reference pages.
02
Five clearly labelled sections using the prescribed headings.
03
An ethical question, topic introduction and thesis statement.
04
An argument supporting your position, presented without theoretical apparatus.
05
An explanation of the aligning moral theory, with its background and core principle.
06
A demonstration that your argument applies that theory.
07
An objection grounded in a different ethical theory, and a response to it.
08
A conclusion describing what each section accomplished.
09
At least three scholarly resources, at most one of which is the textbook.
10
A separate APA title page and a reference page.

From ethical question to objection and response

Part 1: Introduction

State the ethical question, introduce the issue, and close with a thesis.

Part 2: Ethical Argument

Present the strongest case for your position, as an argument rather than an exposition.

Part 3: Explanation and Defense

Explain the aligning theory, then show your argument applying it.

Part 4: Objection and Response

Raise the strongest objection from a different theory, then answer it.

Part 5: Conclusion

Describe what each section of the paper accomplished.

Choosing the theory your argument already uses

Recommended databases

The course textbook
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy and applied ethics journals

Search sequence

1.
Fix your position and your argument before reading theory, because Part 2 has to stand as an argument on its own and reading theory first tends to produce an argument shaped to fit a framework you have not yet defended.
2.
Read the encyclopaedia entry for the theory your argument already resembles rather than choosing the theory you find easiest to explain, since Part 3 is graded on the fit between the two.
3.
Read the entry for a competing theory next, looking specifically for the point at which it would reach a different conclusion on your question — that point is your Part 4 objection.
4.
Search the applied ethics literature on your specific issue for at least one of the two non-textbook sources, so the paper cites work on the question rather than only on the theories.

Scholarly sources on the three moral theories

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
Consequentialism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2023
Peer-reviewed and citable, which matters because the brief demands scholarly sources and encyclopaedia entries are often assumed not to qualify. Use it for the Part 3 exposition if your argument is outcome-based, and for the historical sentence the brief asks for. Its survey of variants is also the fastest way to find where a consequentialist objection to a non-consequentialist argument would bite.
02
Deontological Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2020
The natural counterpart source. It sets out duty- and rights-based reasoning and, more usefully for Part 4, the standing objections deontologists press against outcome-based arguments — that some acts remain impermissible whatever the consequences. That is a ready template for an objection you would find genuinely hard to answer.
03
Virtue Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022
The third of the theories the course names, and the one most often explained loosely as “be a good person”. This entry gives you the core ideal in defensible terms — character and flourishing rather than rules or outcomes — and the criticisms of it, which is what you need if virtue ethics is the framework your objection comes from rather than your defence.
04
Utilitarianism, Act and Rule
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2024
Worth having alongside the consequentialism entry because the act–rule distinction is where many objections and responses actually turn: an objection that defeats act utilitarianism often leaves rule utilitarianism standing. If your Part 4 response works by limiting the objection's scope rather than refuting it, this is frequently the distinction that does the limiting.

Before the ethical reasoning final paper is submitted

Common mistakes

Writing your own headings when the brief prescribes five, verbatim, five separate times.
Introducing moral theory in Part 2, which the brief explicitly defers to Parts 3 and 4.
Objecting from the same theory used in the defence.
Constructing a deliberately weak objection so the response is easy.
Responding by refuting the objection in general rather than limiting its force against your argument.
Letting the historical background in Part 3 consume the word budget.
Explaining the objecting theory at the same length as the defending one.
Pasting the Week 1 introduction unchanged despite the instruction to revise it.
Counting the textbook as more than one of the three required sources.
Listing sources on the reference page that are never cited in the text.
Citing a source without quoting, summarising or paraphrasing what it says.

Submission checklist

All five prescribed headings appear, worded as the brief words them.
Part 2 contains no theory exposition.
The theory in Part 3 is the one your argument actually uses.
The theory in Part 4 is different from the one in Part 3.
The objection is one you would struggle to answer.
The response addresses whether the objection undermines your argument specifically.
The conclusion describes each section rather than restating the thesis.
Word count falls between 1,300 and 1,500, excluding title and references.
At least two scholarly sources are not the textbook.
Every source in the reference list is cited in the text.
Each source is quoted, summarised or paraphrased.
The title page carries the paper title, your name, course name and number, and instructor's name.

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.