Discussion Post 1: Morality, Moral Reasoning, and Moral Skepticism

Weeks Covered: 13

Instructions

This discussion integrates Weeks 13 of the course:

• What is morality?
• How moral reasoning works
• Whether morality can be challenged by moral skepticism

Your task is not to summarize the readings, but to explain and evaluate ideas clearly and thoughtfully using concepts from the course.

Part 1 Original Post (Minimum 300 words)

Address all three sections below:

1. What is morality?
2. Explain what philosophers mean by morality. In your explanation, clarify whether morality is primarily about rules, reasons, character, social expectations, or something else. Be precise.
3. Moral reasoning
4. Explain how moral reasoning helps us decide what is right or wrong. Use one concrete example (a real-life or hypothetical case) to show how moral reasoning works in practice.
5. Moral skepticism
6. Briefly explain one skeptical challenge to morality discussed in Week 3. Then assess it:

• Is this challenge convincing?
• Why or why not?

Your post should demonstrate understanding of the readings and lectures while clearly explaining ideas in your own words.

Part 2 Replies to Classmates

Respond substantively to at least two classmates.

Each reply should:

• Engage with the ideas, not just agree or disagree
• Ask a question, raise a concern, or extend their reasoning
• Be at least 100 words each

Short comments such as I agree or Good post will not receive credit.

Writing Expectations

• Write clearly and in complete sentences
• Use philosophical terms accurately
• Aim for explanation and evaluation, not summary

B. Discussion Post 1 Rubric (100 Points Total)

Use four criteria. This keeps grading fast and transparent.

Criterion 1: Conceptual Understanding (30 points)

Understanding of morality, moral reasoning, and moral skepticism

• 2730 (Excellent): Accurate, clear, and precise understanding of all key concepts
• 2426 (Good): Mostly accurate understanding; minor gaps or imprecision
• 2123 (Satisfactory): Basic understanding; explanations are thin or unclear
• 020 (Poor): Major misunderstandings or missing concepts

Criterion 2: Philosophical Reasoning & Analysis (30 points)

Quality of explanation, example, and evaluation

• 2730: Thoughtful reasoning; example is relevant and well-explained; evaluation is clear
• 2426: Reasoning is solid but underdeveloped in places
• 2123: Minimal analysis; example or evaluation is weak
• 020: Little or no reasoning; post is mostly descriptive

Criterion 3: Engagement with Peers (20 points)

Quality of replies to classmates

• 1820: Two or more substantive, thoughtful replies that advance discussion
• 1617: Replies engage but lack depth
• 1415: Replies are brief or mostly affirmational
• 013: Fewer than two replies or replies lack substance

Criterion 4: Clarity, Organization, and Writing (20 points)

Communication quality

• 1820: Clear, organized, and well-written; ideas flow logically
• 1617: Mostly clear with minor issues
• 1415: Organization or clarity problems interfere somewhat
• 013: Writing is unclear or difficult to follow

You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads