Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Paper #1 Guidelines

(Want tips on writing a philosophy essay? Check out here and here!)

Due Date: Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Worth: 5% of your overall grade

Assignment: Write an essay in which you support your opinion with an argument. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)

Possible Paper Topics (Choose ONE of the following topics)
1. Defend a Theory. Out of the six ethical theories that we have studied—moral relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant’s ethical theory, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, or Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) of the best objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections to defend this theory? Explain & defend your position.

2. Criticize a Theory. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the six ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, briefly explain the theory, and present what you take to be the best argument in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how someone who supports the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.

3. Facts, Opinions, & the Hitler Intuition. In class, we’ve discussed the “Hitler Intuition”: Many people want to say that Hitler’s moral beliefs were worse than ours, not just different from ours. Many use this intuition to argue against moral relativism, and support moral realism. Examine this intuition.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for moral realism, explain exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what makes moral claims objectively true? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
4. Motives vs. Consequences. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why?
-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the consequences of an action.
-Then describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the motivations of actions.
-In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
[NOTE: You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.]
5. Choose Your Own Adventure! Write on a topic of your choosing related to some or one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, October 16th.)

It Tastes Like Burning

5 comments:

  1. I applaud your Simpsons knowledge. It's truly cromulent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's where I saw the Leprchaun. He tells me to burn things

    ReplyDelete