Week 15 Discussion — Is It a Clash of Values, or a Fight About a Fact? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Two people can share every value and still reach opposite conclusions, because they disagree about a fact; and two people can agree on every fact and still part ways over which value comes first. This week you find out which kind of disagreement you are in before you try to win it.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: An illustrative student finds out that a close friend copied part of a lab report from another student's file, and is deciding whether to tell the instructor. Put the strongest argument for telling and the strongest argument against telling in standard form, mark the value premise and the factual premises in each, and say which premise the two arguments really disagree about: a value premise or a factual one. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply. You are judging the arguments, and the rubric rewards that work, not which choice you make.
Option B: Choose one everyday value question from a club, a team, a workplace, or a household, such as how to split a shared cost or whether to change a group rule (no politicians, parties, campaigns, news outlets, religious or health-policy questions, or anyone's real name). Write the strongest argument on each side in standard form, mark each value premise and factual premise, steelman the side you disagree with, and say which premise the disagreement turns on. Then defend your own judgment with the strongest objection to it and a reply.
There is no single correct judgment here, and the course takes no side. What the course settles is the structure: a moral argument joins a value premise to a factual premise, each needs its own support, and many moral disagreements turn out to be about the factual premise. The real work is finding where the disagreement lives and defending your view against the best case on the other side. Pick the option you actually care about, and make your case.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Put the strongest argument on each side in standard form, mark each value premise and factual premise, and supply any unstated value premise, marked (supplied).
- Name the premise the disagreement turns on and say whether it is a value premise or a factual one.
- State your own judgment, give the strongest objection to it in terms its holders would accept, and reply.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (moral argument, value premise, factual premise, value disagreement, factual disagreement, the consequence-based, duty-based, or character-based framework, steelmanning, or the straw man) correctly.
- Length: roughly 200–300 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep real people's names and live political, religious, or health-policy questions out of your examples.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: steelman the side a classmate rejected, point to a factual premise they assumed without evidence, or show how one framework gives a reason on the other side. "Nice post!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. For telling: P1: Copying another student's file counts as cheating under the course rules. P2 (supplied): A student should not let cheating stand when it treats other students unfairly. So, C: The student should tell the instructor. Against telling: P1: Telling would end the friendship. P2: A talk with the friend first could stop the copying. P3 (supplied): A friend should try a private talk before going to an authority. So, C: The student should talk to the friend first. The two sides can share a value about fairness; much of the dispute is the factual premise that a private talk would stop the copying.
Notice how it puts both sides in standard form, marks the supplied value premises, and finds the factual premise the dispute turns on. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | Both arguments are in standard form with each value premise and factual premise marked, the premise the disagreement turns on is named, and the judgment is defended against a fairly stated objection | The arguments appear, but the premises are not sorted into value and factual, or the objection is a straw man | Missing, off-topic, or no judgment |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses value premise, factual premise, value disagreement, factual disagreement, a named framework, or steelmanning precisely, and keeps stating a view fairly apart from agreeing with it | Uses a term loosely, or treats a factual dispute as a pure clash of values without noticing | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that steelman a rejected side, point to an assumed factual premise, or show a framework giving a reason on the other side | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com