I describe four different approaches to ethics education that are commonly implemented in Ethics Across the Curriculum (EAC) programs: the Case-based, Internalist, Supplementation, and Responsibilist. This typology is useful to categorize the range of institutional practices. As our Society moves into its next twenty years, I consider what we have learned about ethics education and whether we should promote a particular approach. I use a literary resource to shift our perspective and a philosophical resource to introduce a new structure. Using insights from these resources, I offer two proposals. First, I develop a theoretical proposal for an integrated model of ethics education that I call the Comprehensive Ethics Education (CEE) model. Second, I offer two pedagogical proposals for use in quantitative courses and degree programs as well as institution-wide EAC programs.

This study compares two uniquely developed tools for engaging undergraduate business ethics students in case discussions: paper-based (static) cases and interactive digital games. The cases we developed address borderline instances of sexual harassment and racism in the workplace and were used to facilitate students’ affective appreciation of the content of course lectures and readings. The purpose of the study was to assess the relative effectiveness of these two tools as teaching aids in increasing affective learning. Pre- and post-test surveys thus focused on affective learning outcomes. These included change in student perceptions of the importance of the topics, feelings of agency, perceptions of improved self-reliance, and confidence. Results showed that digital cases are at least as effective as static cases in terms of their affective learning efficacy, and that digital serious games spur students to reflect on themselves and others more effectively than static cases.

While many may see the board game “Monopoly” as nothing more than a means of entertainment, it carries with it the potential to be used as an instrument for teaching ethical principles of business. This article makes a case that Monopoly be used to teach business ethics by providing the opportunity for a rich discussion regarding the dangers of concentrated wealth, collusion, and having an end goal that forces you into bankrupting your opponents and becoming the most cutthroat capitalist on the board. Victory is achieved only by the self-serving actions of the individual; attempts at prosperity, generosity, and unity serve only to place the ethically minded player at a disadvantage. The article first provides an overview of the business principles on which Monopoly is based, and then discusses the disconnects between business ethics and winning at Monopoly, and how these disconnects can be used as a teaching tool.

Recently, there has been a focus on ethics education in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) and business programs. Scholars, industry representatives, and accreditation bodies have identified ethics education as an element that requires renewed strategies to create better prepared professionals. In this paper, the author argues the importance of educating future technology and business professionals in constructive confrontation, conflict resolution, and creative problem solving. In addition, students need to be provided tools to become self-aware so they can be more assertive in their everyday lives which will lead to more confident decision-making. Ethics curriculum in all fields should provide discussion regarding the normalcy and essential nature of confrontation. Without knowledge and practice of strategy when confrontation is needed, students will be less likely to act when faced with questionable situations in their professional lives. Finally, educational techniques for use in the classroom, such as assignments that promote practice in confrontation and peer mediation, are presented and explained.

This article presents evidence supporting the claim that ethical reasoning is a skill that can be taught and assessed. We propose a working definition of ethical reasoning as 1) the ability to identify, analyze, and weigh moral aspects of a particular situation, and 2) to make decisions that are informed and warranted by the moral investigation. The evidence consists of a description of an ethical reasoning education program—Ethical Reasoning in Action (ERiA)—designed to increase ethical reasoning skills in a variety of situations and areas of life. ERiA is housed at a public, major comprehensive U.S. university—James Madison University—and assessment of the program focuses on interventions delivered prior to and during orientation for incoming first-year students. Findings indicate that the interventions measurably enhance the ability of undergraduate students to reason ethically. ERiA’s competency-targeted program and positive student learning outcomes offers a promising model for higher education ethics programs seeking to connect classroom learning in ethics to decision-making in everyday life.

In this paper, we present an approach to collaborative multi-disciplinary teaching as a method of integrating ethical reasoning into an applied science curriculum. Bringing together two faculty—one from computer engineering and one from science, technology, and society—to co-teach a two-semester upper-level sequence on holistic problem solving focused on “privacy in a connected world,” we model ethical reasoning as a habit of mind. We argue that this practice of modeling through multi-disciplinary teaching demonstrates for students that ethical reasoning is an intrinsic part of addressing complex sociotechnical problems. Through such modeling, we guide students toward developing ethical reasoning as a habit of mind that is relevant and important in their technical work. Drawing on analysis of student work, we show the evolution of two student groups across two semesters as they learn how to address and integrate ethics into their analysis of sociotechnical problems and solutions.

Plagiarism detection service like Turnitin can be powerful tools to help faculty evaluate whether a student’s paper is plagiarized. But there’s another side to Turnitin: The service promotes itself as a way to help teach students how to avoid plagiarism. I argue that the use of plagiarism detection services as learning tools actually contributes to the problem of plagiarism, by encouraging the idea that original papers are the goal of a class, instead of instruments to assess a student’s ability to understand the class material. In addition, giving students access to the very tool that professors use to evaluate the authenticity of a paper allows students to use the tool to intentionally plagiarize in a way that passes the test. While plagiarism-detection services can help professors investigate suspected acts of plagiarism, they should not be used as a tool to teach students how to write papers.

This article’s objectives are two-fold: (i) to argue for making a communication ethics course a staple of virtually every undergraduate philosophy program; and (ii) to assist in bringing this vision to fruition by offering, to the interested instructor, (a) practical guidance on how such a course might be structured as a workshop so as to prompt students to do exciting independent philosophizing that capitalizes upon their vast funds of experience with everyday communication, and (b) a reasonably rich set of specific topics, readings, and questions that the course might productively address.

This paper is a reflection on an experiment undertaken during a Medical Ethics lecture delivered to a group of medical students in the UK as part of a project for a programme in Higher Education Practice. The aim of the project, following Paulo Freire’s idea of ‘liberating education,’ was to identify students’ ethical assumptions and biases in relation to a problem of resource allocation in healthcare, and their role in decision-making. The experiment showed the importance placed by medical students on disputed values such as free will, desert, social worth and body image, and highlighted the difficulty and importance of bringing students’ process of moral decision-making to awareness in ethics teaching, in order to a) decrease the role of implicit bias in students’ decision making and b) allow students to decide whether they in fact agree with assumed values and ethical frameworks that influence their thinking.

One area of ethical concern in higher education is writing services for graduate students, which can range from simple proofreading to rewriting content for flow, coherence, and structure to extensive content creation akin to ghostwriting. There are various ways to look at the use of writing services: 1) as a clear violations of ethics, presenting the student as a more capable writer than he or she is; 2) as a “necessary evil” resulting from greater numbers of individuals with inadequate writing preparation entering university graduate programs; and 3) as a routine part of professional practice utilized by published writers who uniformly benefit from editing and proofreading. Professors, research advisors, and writing center tutors must face a range of ethical questions regarding writing assistance, particularly given that many graduate students, particularly those at the doctoral level, will soon be established professionals expected to guide others in the production of scholarly work. What are the ethical differences between types of writing assistance? What is the appropriate level of writing help for those in graduate programs? How does a strict stance on the editing of student papers reflect on the common practice of professional editing for publication—which can make published writers appear perhaps more capable than they really are? This article examines the complex issues those working with graduate students can face in trying to improve the writing they produce while also maintaining strong ethical standards regarding authorship and encouraging the learning process. It provides an overview of the ethical issues involved in writing services and extensive outside writing help provided to graduate students, and offers suggestions for creating a balance between compassion, professionalism, and honesty in graduate writing. It also proposes general ideas for offering appropriate assistance based on the type of writing in question—assistance that honors the learning process, demonstrates respect for the concept of authorship, and adheres to the concepts of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice outlined in the Belmont Report (1978).

In recent years there has been an increased interest in the research dedicated to the ethics and morality of supply chains. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) dominates literature on supply chain ethics in management education. The objective of this paper is to develop some propositions to complement and look more broadly and differently at these management concepts. Supplementing these concepts with the fundamental questions on the meaning of ‘what a moral supply chain is’ and ‘what moral supply chain ought to be,’ we develop some descriptive and normative propositions for management education on the ethics of supply chains. Against a descriptive viewpoint, we propose that judgments on the morality of supply chains should be viewed from multiple perspectives, often conflicting. Against a normative viewpoint, we propose some reflections on how to apply Aristotelian practical wisdom in management education on supply chain ethics.