demonstrate an in-depth as well as practical understanding of the concept ethics.

RMIT SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTING, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SUPPLY CHAIN
ISYS3300 Business Ethics for a Digital Society
Assignment 1: Individual Ethical Analysis Discussion Paper
Assessment weighting: 20% of ISYS3300 total grade (2000 words)
Assignment description
Written Group Research Assignment: This is an individual written assignment in which you are
required to demonstrate an in-depth as well as practical understanding of the concept ethics. To
develop a good quality discussion paper, you will need to read widely and draw upon situations
which help you illustrate the concept clearly.
Suggested approach to developing the discussion
Remember that the key points of discussion in this assignment are definition, philosophical origins
and importance in society. Therefore, the following questions should be used to guide both your
reading and the development of the discussion. You, however, SHOULD NOT use these as section
headings. The questions include:
1. What is ethics?
2. What are the origins of the concept of ethics and how has it evolved over time?
3. What are the main perspectives on ethics and who are the key proponents?
4. How and why is ethics important in society?
Suggested structure
Your discussion should be presented logically and be supported by appropriate academic literature.
Only published academic literature (books, book chapters and journal articles) are considered
appropriate. Do not refer to websites unless they are online journals or electronic books. Do not
refer to lecture notes.
The following headings may be used as a guide to how you may organise your paper (remember this
is only a suggested guide and not to be taken as the recommended structure):
1. Introduction
This should set out the broad objectives of the paper and provide an outline of the discussion
2. Understanding the concept of ethics (this maybe further subdivided into)
a. The meaning of ethics
b. The origins of the concept of ethics
c. Key perspectives in ethics
3. Ethics and society (this maybe further divided into)
a. The importance of ethics in society
b. Ethics and individuals
c. Ethics and organisations
4. Conclusion
This should summarise the key messages and provide a concluding reflection on the key points
5. References
An alphabetically arranged list of all the references used following the Harvard referencing style:
https://www.rmit.edu.au/library/study/referencing
The paper should be 2000 words long and should not include abstract, table of contents or executive
summary. The references section does not count towards the word limit for the assignment.
RMIT Classification: Trusted
Grading details:
A Marking Rubric for this assignment is included at the bottom of this specification document. To
meet satisfactory standards and beyond, it is expected that a completed and quality assessment will
demonstrate self-directed critical interpretation of course content, aligned with depth in
scholarship, where appropriate, through reference to supporting journal articles, books and/or other
relevant references that are engaged in independent research. Clarity in expression of well-reasoned
logical and reflective arguments are of great importance in making the difference between a mere
pass and a distinction-level paper.
Assessment criteria
• Clarity of written expression, logical flow and attention to detail. (Do your arguments make
sense?)
• The written submission should contain clear and effective introduction and conclusion
sections that open and close the discussion.
• Sections within the discussion paper should be clearly labelled. You should have
introduction, conclusion and references sections as well as others with more unique names
to suit what is being discussed.
• Evidence of research through wide reading for those seeking high grades. There should be
clear evidence of academic scholarship to suggest that more than just the course text-book
and Wikipedia or web-sites were used as references in support of arguments.
• Submissions should, in addition to the recommended course text, include at least FIVE
academic references (namely scholarly books and/or journal articles.)
• NO Wikipedia articles should be used as references. Some news websites may be cited as
references but only in addition to the main academic material when required to expand
descriptive context. References must be used to support what you say and not included as
mere filler. These should be formatted according to the Harvard referencing style.
• Overall presentation of written work (including a title, appropriate use of subheadings,
layout of text into sections, formatting of text into readable short paragraphs around four to
six lines in length and other creative aspects of document production.)
Submission details
The submission due date is provided in the main canvas assignment page. Please refer to your
course guide for information regarding late submission and associated procedures and penalties.
Check your Turnitin results to ensure you are paraphrasing correctly and not overusing direct
quotations.
ALL submissions MUST have your full name and student number on each page of the document.
(HINT: Put in either the header or footer.) Clearly indicate your FAMILY name.
RMIT Classification: Trusted
Marking Rubric
Appropriate title and introduction for the paper. The title of a paper is important and should be
chosen carefully. So is the brief introduction, which should be carefully developed to give the reader
a clear objective of the discussion and an outline.
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Clarity of written expression, structure and logical flow and attention to detail regarding the key
points of the discussion, i.e., the meaning, origins and importance of ethics. (A detailed, accurate
and clear presentation with appropriately and carefully designed sections and sub-sections):
Unsatisfactory (0.5) — Satisfactory (1.0) — Good (2.0) — Very Good (3.0) — Excellent (4.0)
Quality and depth of commentary in relation to the literature. Shows reflection and thoughtful indepth considerations of the topic. It is not merely a tutorial-style description of these ideas and
arguments of meaning and importance of ethics:
Unsatisfactory (0.5) — Satisfactory (1.5) — Good (3.0) — Very Good (4.5) — Excellent (6.0)
Quality of conclusions. (A synthesis of the discussion before this section should be outlined in
summary. New material not covered before this section should not be featured here):
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Quality of referencing and bibliography. All material referred to in support of the discussions are
appropriately located in-text and clearly presented in the bibliography at the end of the paper. No
excessive use of verbatim quotes and, when used, they are appropriately attributed:
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Attention to detail in referencing: Appropriate number of high-quality references (scholarly books
and/or journal articles) are cited correctly according to the Harvard style; Wikipedia articles and
recommended course text-book are not cited; a few news web-sites referenced to add background
detail.
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Overall presentation of written work (This includes discussion paper word count, appropriate use of
sub-headings, layout, formatting – i.e. line spacing – and other creative aspects of document
production such as paragraph length):
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)