"On Morality" is a challenging text for ethics and composition courses because it questions the certainty with which people invoke moral principles. Students asked to write about it must grapple with an argument that resists easy summary. Their essays frequently swing between vague agreement and overconfident disagreement. Teachers need criteria that reward careful reasoning about difficult ideas.

The first task in grading is to check comprehension. A student who misreads Didion's position cannot respond to it meaningfully, no matter how well they write. Look for accurate paraphrase of her central concern before evaluating the student's own argument. This step prevents rewarding fluent misunderstandings.

The second task is to assess the quality of the student's own moral reasoning. Do they offer reasons for their view, or do they simply state it? Do they consider a case that challenges their position? Ethics writing improves dramatically when students test their claims against difficult examples.

Criteria for moral reasoning

A strong rubric addresses accuracy of interpretation, clarity of the student's position, quality of reasons, and treatment of counterexamples. It should also avoid rewarding any particular ethical conclusion. The goal is to assess how well the student reasons, not what they believe. Making this explicit protects fairness and encourages honest thinking.

• Accurate summary of Didion's argument before responding to it
• A clearly stated position with reasons behind it
• At least one example or case that tests the position
• Fair consideration of a viewpoint the student disagrees with
• Precise language that avoids slogans and absolutes

Handling disagreement gracefully

Teachers may find themselves disagreeing with student conclusions, sometimes strongly. The rubric provides a way to set that aside and evaluate the argument on its merits. Comment on the reasoning, noting where a step is unsupported or where an objection has not been addressed. Avoid indicating that the conclusion itself is wrong.

Students sometimes worry that disagreeing with the instructor will lower their grade. Reassure them in advance, and demonstrate fairness in your comments. When students trust the process, they take more intellectual risks. The writing becomes more honest and more interesting.

Scaling the assessment

Essays on abstract topics can be slow to assess, because the reasoning must be followed step by step. AI-assisted review can map the structure of each argument, identifying claims, supports, and gaps. This gives the teacher a starting outline to verify and refine. It speeds up the work without replacing judgment.

Pay special attention to essays that take unconventional positions. These may be misread by automated tools or by tired human graders. Read them carefully and evaluate them on the strength of their reasoning. Some of the most valuable student thinking appears in unusual arguments.

Using the essay for discussion

Before writing, hold a structured discussion that requires students to argue positions they do not hold. This exercise reduces overconfidence and improves the quality of counterargument in the essays. It also models respectful disagreement. Students who have practiced seeing another side write more balanced essays.

After grading, share anonymous examples of strong reasoning with the class. Highlight how a good essay handles an objection or clarifies a term. Seeing concrete models helps students understand the standard. It also builds a classroom culture that values thoughtful argument.