The point of the paper is to show that you understand the reading, and evidence your understanding by using the ideas of the authors we have encountered.
To write an "A" Paper, you should argue for your own specific thesis, organize your work logically, use sources responsibly, and demonstrate mastery of the concept you are using.
To write a "C" or "D" paper, demonstrate misunderstanding, confusion or severe lack of depth in your attempt. Have several elements missing, and do not proofread your work at all.
Here are some examples of topics--only one topic per person--you can always make up your own too!:
Nagel proposes that the reason why public life seems to have different values than private life is that they both derive from the same source-a value theory that concerns both actions and consequences. Evaluate the usefulness of this idea in the context of a profession-can ethical dilemmas within the profession be explained or even resolved in this way?
Sissela Bok discusses lying to patients, and the reasons people sometimes justify these lies as being beneficial. She points out that there is a power differential embodied in lying, and evaluates the reasons people offer for lying. Apply this train of thought to honesty in another profession, and evaluate whether you think lying can be justified, or criticized in the ways Bok highlights.
Whistle-blowing involves an employee violating some responsibilities to an employer in favor of seeking a larger social good. Use McConnell's discussion of whistleblowing to evaluate the situtation of an actual whistleblower.
Despite the prevalence of ethical codes, some wonder about what their function is. We will read something about the ideas that have been proposed, and arguments that ethical codes are only "window dressing". Use one or more actual ethical codes to assess this general purpose and utility of ethical codes.