3.1 Eac toolkit - instructor module for theory building activities  (Page 3/3)

Preliminary assessment results from muddy point exercise

• Some students felt constrained by the dilemma framing of the scenario. They didn't like being forced to choose between shooting a villager or walking away. They wanted more freedom to explore other options.
• Other students wanted the scenario to provide more details to aid them in making their decision. For example, did the villagers collaborate with the enemy, which ones collaborated, what was the cause of the terrorists, etc. They felt this would make it easier to make an defend an ethical choice.
• Some students (not all) had trouble seeing how their modes of reasoning made use of established ethical modes of argument.
• Finally, many wanted to see more closure in the activity. For example, what did the instructor think, what was the correct answer to the dilemma, how did this relate to their project study in business ethics.
• As a result of this assessment exercise, a new conclusion was added to the student module. It emphasized how moral theory was embedded in the students' comments and how the students practiced the virtue of reasonableness in listening to different positions and searching for areas of agreement.

Pedagogical commentary

Any comments or questions regarding this module? (For example: suggestions to authors, suggestions to instructors (how-to), queries or comments directed o EAC community, pitfalls or frustrations, novel ideas/approaches/uses, etc.)

This exercise always evokes a strong response from students. In final course evaluations, students often refer to this exercise as the most memorable experience in the course. But many are frustrated by the lack of closure and are uncomfortable with the lack of closure. The following list provides a partial set of guidelines to keep in mind when teaching this module:

• The most important thing an instructor can do in this module is listen. Students often make use of moral arguments and ethical theory. Listening carefully to their arguments and highlighting how they use argument and theory provides a means of introducing ethical theory without falling prey to the theory-practice gap.
• Closure can be reached by having students reflect on how they dealt with disagreements with their peers. In small groups, for example, students who have trouble agreeing can be asked to reflect on this experience. They can be encouraged by showing them how their discussion, while not issuing in agreement, often sharpened and clarified the nature and terms of disagreement.
• Students often come into an ethics class with the idea that all ethical problems are dilemmas, that is, forced choices between two, equally bad alternatives. The frustration they experience in resolving the Mountain Terrorist dilemma can be used to motivate them to reframe problems that initially take the dilemma form. In other words, the exercise can be used as an occasion to introduce and practice moral imagination.

Appendix (annotated)

Bibliography

• Bernard Williams, "Against Utilitarianism," in Ethical Theory: Classics and Contemporary Readings, 5th edition (2007) edited by Louis Pojman, Belmont: Wadsworth: 219-228.
• Geoffrey Thomas (1994) An Introduction to Ethics , U.K.: Oxford.
• James R. Rest, D. Narvaez, M.J. Bebeau, and S.J. Thoma. (1999) Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach , Lawrence Erlbaum Press, Hillside, N.J.
• Mark Johnson (1993) Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics , University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Anthony Weston (2006) A Practical Companion to Ethics , U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Additional information or annotations for instructors regarding the Student Module Appendix