Nagel's chapter on right and wrong asks whether moral claims can be objectively true or whether they simply reflect our feelings and cultures. Students bring strong views to this question, and many of them confuse having an opinion with having an argument. Teachers who grade ethics essays need a way to score the quality of reasoning while staying neutral about the conclusion.

The most common weakness in these essays is moral assertion without justification. A student writes that something is simply wrong, or that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, and treats the statement as self-evident. The assignment is meant to push past that point by asking why anyone should accept the claim and what follows if it is true.

Relativism is a particular trap, because many students adopt it as a polite default without examining it. They say that morality is just a matter of opinion, then in the same paper condemn injustice as though it were an objective fact. A good grader notices that tension and asks the student to reconcile the two positions.

Prompts that invite real moral reasoning

Prompts that ask students to evaluate a specific claim tend to yield better writing than broad questions about morality. For instance, asking whether a practice can be wrong even if the surrounding culture approves of it forces students to test relativism against a concrete case. Providing a short scenario, such as a community that accepts a harmful custom, gives students material to reason with.

• Argue whether a practice can be wrong even if everyone in a society accepts it
• Explain how you would respond to someone who says morality is just a matter of taste
• Defend or reject the idea that we have reasons to be moral even when no one would find out
• Compare reasoning from consequences with reasoning from duties using one concrete case
• Discuss whether disagreement about right and wrong shows that there is no truth about it

Keeping the grader neutral

Neutrality is easier when the rubric is written in terms of argument features instead of conclusions. Criteria such as whether the student states the principle they rely on, applies it consistently to cases, and considers a case that challenges it can be checked in any essay. A paper reaching a conclusion the grader dislikes can still earn full marks when it meets those descriptors.

Anonymous grading helps as well, since graders may be unconsciously influenced by what they know about a student. Blind scoring of the first pass, followed by a review that includes the student's name, can reduce that effect. This matters in ethics classes, where a student who has argued unpopular views in discussion may otherwise be judged on reputation.

Feedback that deepens the argument

Feedback in ethics essays is most useful when it exposes the principle underneath a student's claim. A comment such as "You say lying is wrong here, but would it be wrong to lie to protect someone from harm?" invites the student to refine their view. The goal is not to change their conclusion but to make sure it can survive a test case.

Teachers can also praise strong moves explicitly, such as when a student acknowledges a serious counterexample to their own position. Naming that behavior encourages students to repeat it, and it communicates that intellectual honesty is valued over having the last word. Students tend to take more risks in later drafts once they see that it is rewarded.

Scaling thoughtful feedback

In a large ethics course, offering every student a test case or a pointed question is time-consuming. AI grading tools can help by identifying which essays lack a stated principle or ignore a counterexample, then drafting comments that refer to the student's own sentences. A teacher can edit those comments in a few seconds and send feedback that would otherwise take several minutes per paper.

Because ethics is sensitive, the teacher should always review the output before it reaches students. Tone matters, and some comments need softening or a different example. Used carefully, the tool handles the repetitive parts of the job and leaves the human judgment where it belongs.