Week 10 — Where Morality Comes From: Testing Three Challenges

Assignment 9 of the term — credit this week's sources correctly, key three arguments about morality for validity, state cultural relativism, divine command theory, and ethical egoism at their strongest, and explain the difference between two kinds of egoism to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 1 you learned the Socratic habit of testing a definition with a counterexample, and in Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and the valid and invalid forms. This week you learned descriptive and normative questions, Hume's is-ought problem, cultural relativism in two forms, the reformer objection, divine command theory and the Euthyphro dilemma, psychological and ethical egoism, and the ring of Gyges. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources, the ring of Gyges (the Week 10 entry on the course's thought-experiment roster), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Dataset B's premises are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys its arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the sources right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Socrates' ring of Gyges story proves that people are only good when someone is watching, and Hume's Euthyphro dilemma proves that religion is wrong. Anyway, cultures disagree about morals, so morality is relative." Do four things:

• Correct the post. Say who tells the story of Gyges and in which book of which work; say what question the story asks, and why "proves that people are only good when someone is watching" overstates it; say who asks the Euthyphro question and in which dialogue; and say why the dilemma is a question about what makes acts right rather than an attack on religion.
• Reconstruct the move to relativism. Write the post's last sentence in standard form ("Moral beliefs differ from culture to culture. So what is right is whatever each culture believes is right."), key it for validity as it stands with a one-sentence reason, then add the premise that would make it valid, mark it "(added)", name the resulting form, and say which premise now carries the weight and why the is-ought problem bears on it.
• Key argument 10. Write Dataset B's argument 10 in standard form ("Most people in this town favor the law. So the law is just."), key it for validity with a reason, and build one same-shape argument of your own, on a new topic, whose premise is true and whose conclusion is false.
• Reconstruct psychological egoism. Write the course's reconstruction of the argument for psychological egoism in standard form, mark the premise the reconstruction adds as "(added)", name the form, and say whether it is valid. Then name the premise its critics reject and say why, in one or two sentences.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Dataset B, the course's argument set, holds 10 arguments, and 6 of them are keyed valid. How many are keyed invalid?

Part B — weigh the three challenges. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Cultural relativism has 2 forms, the Euthyphro dilemma has 2 horns, and egoism has 2 forms. How many claims is that to tell apart in all?

Then do two things:

• State the three challenges at their strongest. State normative cultural relativism, divine command theory, and ethical egoism each as its best defenders would. For relativism, give the reformer objection and the relativist's reply. For divine command theory, write the Euthyphro dilemma in standard form, name its form, key it for validity, and give the reply from God's good nature. For ethical egoism, give its enlightened form, its strongest objection, and a reply from the egoist's side.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where the three challenges disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A cousin who has never taken philosophy says, "Everyone is selfish deep down, so you should look out for yourself too." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that separates the two claims in that sentence, explains why the first does not prove the second, and names one honest limit of your explanation. Explain any term your cousin might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a roommate who asks what a thought experiment is for. Model answer: "A thought experiment is an imagined case we use to test an idea, the way a pilot practices in a simulator before flying. We picture the case carefully and ask what we would say about it. If our answer clashes with a claim we believed, the claim needs another look. One limit: our gut reaction to an imagined case can be wrong too, so the case starts an argument rather than ending it."

Use that pattern for your message to your cousin, with your own explanation of the two kinds of egoism.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned fact showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one of the three challenges stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of a challenge, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it credits the ring of Gyges to Socrates, calls the Euthyphro dilemma an attack on religion, says that cultural disagreement proves morality is relative, or says which challenge is correct, check that against Chapter 10 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: descriptive and normative questions; David Hume's is-ought problem from A Treatise of Human Nature (Books 1 and 2 in 1739, Book 3 in 1740); descriptive and normative cultural relativism and the reformer objection; divine command theory and the Euthyphro dilemma, which Socrates raises in Plato's Euthyphro; psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and enlightened self-interest; and the ring of Gyges, Glaucon's story in Book II of Plato's Republic. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on whether morality is relative, whether God exists, or whether people are always selfish.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Socrates' ring of Gyges story proves that people are only good when someone is watching, and Hume's Euthyphro dilemma proves that religion is wrong. Anyway, cultures disagree about morals, so morality is relative." I say who tells the Gyges story and where, what question it asks, who asks the Euthyphro question and in which dialogue, and why the dilemma is not an attack on religion. I reconstruct the move from "moral beliefs differ from culture to culture" to "what is right is whatever each culture believes is right", key it as it stands, add the premise that makes it valid marked "(added)", name the form, and say which premise carries the weight. I key Dataset B's argument 10 (illustrative): "Most people in this town favor the law. So the law is just." I judge its validity with a reason and build a same-shape argument with a true premise and a false conclusion. I reconstruct the argument for psychological egoism in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So") with the added premise marked "(added)", name its form, judge its validity, and name the premise critics reject and why. Part B: I state normative cultural relativism, divine command theory, and ethical egoism at their strongest; for relativism I give the reformer objection and a reply; for divine command theory I put the Euthyphro dilemma in standard form, name its form, judge its validity, and give the reply from God's good nature; for ethical egoism I give its enlightened form, its strongest objection, and a reply; and I end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Dataset B, the course's argument set, holds 10 arguments, and 6 of them are keyed valid. How many are keyed invalid?
PROBLEM P2: Cultural relativism has 2 forms, the Euthyphro dilemma has 2 horns, and egoism has 2 forms. How many claims is that to tell apart in all?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction and the three reconstructions. For P2 I must also supply the three challenges with their objections and replies, the Euthyphro reconstruction, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a cousin who says everyone is selfish deep down, so you should look out for yourself too. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits the ring of Gyges to Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic, says the story asks whether anyone would act justly if they could never be caught rather than proving that people are only good when watched, credits the Euthyphro question to Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro rather than to Hume, says the dilemma asks how goodness and commands are related rather than attacking religion, and works the P1 count; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if the move to relativism is in standard form, keyed invalid as it stands with a reason, repaired with a marked added premise, named as modus ponens, with the added premise named as the one carrying the weight; argument 10 is in standard form, keyed invalid because it moves from what people believe to what is right, with a working same-shape counterexample; and the egoism argument is in standard form with its added premise marked, named as the categorical syllogism, judged valid, with the added premise named as the one critics reject because it confuses whose desire moves you with what the desire is for; 15 if two of the three are complete and the third has one gap; 5 if at least one form is named and judged with a reason but two or more have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the three challenges (P2): 25 if all three are stated at their strongest, the reformer objection and a relativist reply are given, the Euthyphro dilemma is in standard form, named as disjunctive syllogism, judged valid, with the reply from God's good nature, ethical egoism's enlightened form is given with its strongest objection and a reply, the plain sentence names the disagreement, and the P2 count is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or a challenge is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, separates psychological egoism from ethical egoism, says why the first does not prove the second, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the three reconstructions, the three challenges with objections and replies, the Euthyphro reconstruction, the plain sentence, and the cousin message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, the reconstruction of the move to relativism with its added premise, the keyed argument 10 with your counterexample, and the egoism reconstruction with the premise critics reject, with the first count worked; the three challenges with their objections and replies, the Euthyphro reconstruction, and the plain sentence, with the second count worked; your message to your cousin; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 10 skills — crediting the ring of Gyges and the Euthyphro question to their pinned sources, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, marking an added premise, building a same-shape counterexample to an invalid argument, stating cultural relativism, divine command theory, and ethical egoism at their strongest with their objections and replies, and explaining two kinds of egoism to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your cousin, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each speaker, work, and book against Chapter 10's record; for each reconstruction, underline any added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for your counterexample, confirm that its premise is true and its conclusion false; for each challenge, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; and check that your cousin message keeps a claim about what people do apart from a claim about what they ought to do. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned fact that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com