PHIL 2306 Ethics – Fall 2018
Morality Paper (1200 words-3000 words)
DUE: Wednesday (11/21).
For the past few weeks we have been investigating several moral issues while applying a moral theory and our own critical thinking and considered judgments. From the essay questions below chose one to answer and write a 1200 – 3000-word paper that explains and defends you’re answer to this question in contrast to at least one opposing position. Once you have a complete draft of your paper for Monday 10/22, a partner will read your paper and provide an additional counterargument for you to incorporate and respond to in the final draft of your paper.
This paper assignment is an argumentative philosophy paper. That means in this paper you are attempting to defend or justify your own belief/outlook/answer to a question. In a paper like this you are talking about your own view so it is perfectly fine to use the first-person point of view (I, we), but keep in mind that in philosophy (and in most fields) we don’t really care about people’s mere opinions. People believe all sorts of things, and unless we see a good reason to take one of those beliefs seriously, as possibly true or worthwhile, we ignore those beliefs. If you want smart, intelligent people to take your opinions seriously you need to demonstrate that there are clear and compelling reasons to take your view seriously as a belief they should take-up themselves or at least respect as possibly true or worthwhile. You should assume that your audience is skeptical and is already inclined to believe that your view is probably false. You should write your paper to try and convince this skeptical reader to change their mind.
To do this in your paper, you should make sure to take a clear position in response to your chosen question and defend your answer by making rational arguments in support of it (i.e. give logical reasons, based in critical analysis of the concepts, to show why it is the best). Next, consider the perspective of your opponent; how would they attack your position to demonstrate that your view is wrong? In other words, how would they try and identify a fatal or embarrassing flaw in your theory? Try to make the strongest and most plausible case against your view that you can (i.e. give logical reasons, based in critical analysis of the concepts, to show why the opposing view is best). Finally, you should try to address their points and demonstrate why your principles will create better robots for humanity. Throughout these steps, you should demonstrate a good sense of interpersonal and cultural awareness by correctly identifying and defending controversial premises using sound reasoning, helpful analogies, appeals to plausible principles, etc. If your argument depends on the acceptance of a controversial premise or belief, you need to show that you are aware of that and try to convince your reader that this belief is true. You should also draw on examples from the course readings, videos, class discussion and and/or any helpful examples you create where appropriate. You should aim for “reflective equilibrium” by trying to make sure the logic of your argument would be consistent with virtually any relevant situation and is not arbitrary reasoning meant to apply in that situation never to be used again.
PHIL 2306 Ethics – Fall 2018
Essay Questions
Katie Roiphe, “Date Rape’s Other Victim” vs. Nicholas Dixon, “Alcohol and Rape”
Describe the sort of case about which Dixon and Roiphe would disagree. (That is, Dixon would say that it was wrong to have sex in those circumstances, whereas Roiphe wouldn’t.) Explain their disagreement, and then either (a) take a side and justify your choice or (b) offer a perspective on the case that differs from both Dixon’s and Roiphe’s.
A good essay will:
– Describe a case in which Dixon would say that one party fails to meet the “communicative sexuality” standard, and so is wrong, whereas Roiphe would say that having sex is OK. (Example: a casual sexual encounter involving a moderate amount of alcohol where both parties are giving strong nonverbal signals in favor of wanting to have sex, but there is no explicit question and answer about having sex.)
– Explain why Dixon and Roiphe disagree (Dixon thinks the standard for securing consent alters when alcohol is involved; Roiphe thinks that we’re at risk of denying female sexual agency).
– Reasonably explain agreement with Dixon or Roiphe or offer an alternative perspective.
Peter de Marneffe, “An Argument for Drug Prohibition” vs. Tibor Machan, “Drug Prohibition Is Both Wrong and Unworkable”
Tibor Machan favors legalizing illicit drugs partly because he thinks individuals should be free to make their own choices when it won’t harm others. How do you think Machan would reply to someone like de Marneffe claiming that those who abuse hard drugs often harm people who are close to them? How serious of an objection is this? Why?
A good essay will:
– Demonstrate understanding of Machan’s and de Marneffe’s positions.
– Plausibly extend Machan’s ideas to reply to the question about those who abuse hard drugs.
– Develop a thoughtful position on the seriousness of this objection to Machan’s position, correctly identifying and defending controversial claims using sound reasoning, helpful analogies, appeals to plausible principles, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
PHIL 2306 Ethics – Fall 2018
Andrew Forcehimes, “Download This Essay: A Defense of Stealing E-books” vs. Sadulla Karjiker, “A Response to Forcehimes’ ‘Download This Essay: A Defense of Stealing E-books’”
Choose One of these Two Options:
Option A: The argument against stealing e-books that Forcehimes engages with focuses on the issue of authors’ incentives. Are there other reasons to think it might be wrong? Are these reasons convincing, and do they apply to public libraries?
A good essay will:
– Include a thesis that’s focused and appropriate given the assignment.
– Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
– Correctly identify and defend the argument’s controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
–
Option B: Suppose you aren’t willing to purchase a book if you can’t download it for free. So, you stealing an e-book makes no difference to the author or publisher—they wouldn’t have gotten money from you anyway. What, if anything, does this mean for the morality of stealing e-books? Defend your answer.
A good essay will:
– Show some sensitivity to the idea that morality might be about more than the consequences, even if ultimately rejecting that idea.
– Include a thesis that’s focused and appropriate given the assignment.
– Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
– Correctly identify and defend the argument’s controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
Lisa Cassidy, “Women Shopping and Women Sweatshopping: Individual Responsibility for Consumerism
Scheffler points out that our commonsense notion of individual responsibility may prevent us from feeling the force of Singer’s and Pogge’s arguments. In the first part of your essay, explain the contrast between the commonsense conception of individual responsibility and the one on which Singer and Pogge rely. Next, explain why Singer and Pogge wouldn’t consider the
PHIL 2306 Ethics – Fall 2018
ordinary sense of individual responsibility to be a problem for their arguments. Finally, discuss whether you think it’s a problem for their arguments. Defend your answer.
A good essay will:
– Correctly distinguish the two senses of responsibility on which Singer and Pogge respectively rely.
– Offer a reply to Scheffler on behalf of both Singer and Pogge that fits with their views about responsibility.
– Develop a thoughtful position on the merits of that reply, correctly identifying and defending controversial claims using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
Morgan Luck, “The Gamer’s Dilemma”
Choose One of these Two Options:
Option A: Explain the Gamer’s Dilemma. Then, do your best either (a) to defend one of the five solutions to the Gamer’s Dilemma against Luck’s objection or (b) come up with your own solution.
A good essay will:
– Demonstrate understanding of the Gamer’s Dilemma.
– Develop either (a) a thoughtful defense of one of the five solutions that Luck discusses or (b) a novel defense that is clearly distinct from the five Luck discusses.
– Correctly identify and defend controversial premises using sound reasoning, helpful analogies, appeals to plausible principles, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
Option B: The Gamer’s Dilemma is both compelling and surprising—until you read about it, it probably never occurred to you that virtual murder might be morally problematic (or that virtual pedophilia might be morally OK), and it’s really hard to say where it goes wrong (if it goes wrong at all). When an argument is both compelling and surprising, how should you respond? Should you stick to your guns, assuming that there must be something wrong with it because it’s so surprising? Or should you accept it because it’s compelling? Or is some other response called for? Defend your answer.
PHIL 2306 Ethics – Fall 2018
A good essay will:
– Include a thesis that’s focused and appropriate given the assignment.
– Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
– Correctly identify and defend the argument’s controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
Christopher Pynes, “Seven Arguments Against Extra Credit”
Pynes thinks his best argument against offering extra credit is his addition paradox argument. In that argument, he contrasts instructors’ “Millian” view of grades with the “Benthamite” view of students. Explain the difference Pynes has in mind. Are you a Millian or a Benthamite about grades? Explain your position.
A good essay will:
– Correctly explain the Millian/Benthamite contrast.
– Develop a thoughtful position on the relative merits of the Millian and Benthamite positions, correctly identifying and defending controversial claims using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.
– While defending your argument make sure you “play devil’s advocate” and try to include and develop the most clear and compelling reasons to reject your argument/thesis.
– You should then respond to this negative case to the best of your ability to convince your audience to support your view.
