1. These are the directions
Paper should be at least 1500 words.
Please note that a philosophy paper is not a research paper, nor is it functioning primarily as a summary of a philosopher’s argument. It functions to present and argue for your own position on a topic. Before you begin, please read through Harvard Writing Center’s Guide to Philosophical Writing and take this brief quiz about it: Harvard Guide to Philosophical Writing Quiz
Remember all papers must be organized around an explicitly stated and well-defined thesis (e.g. “I will argue that….”) that takes a position on a narrowly defined philosophical issue addressed by one of the philosophers studied in the course (i.e., one of the arguments we’ve already reconstructed – or, in the case of a reading we’ve yet to discuss, one of the arguments from a reading we will do by the end of the semester).
The body of the draft must include a detailed, textually supported and cited, and charitable reconstruction of the philosopher’s argument concerning this issue.
This assignment requires you to construct your position in relation to one of the philosophers studied in this course, so:
thesis should state both your position on the issue and its relation to the position defended by one of these philosophers. (E.g., “In this paper, I will argue that Hick’s soul-making theodicy does not quite work because….”)
body of the paper should read as a sustained and coherent development of that thesis
2. This is the set up
Whether a utilitarian, Kantian, or ethics of care approach is the best ethical theory through which to evaluate a particular ethical situation of the student’s choosing (e.g., the actions of the father depicted in the film Life is Beautiful, Walter White’s decisions in Breaking Bad, personal experience, whether we have an ethical obligation to help the poor/hungry, whether and under what conditions euthanasia can be considered ethical, etc.).
a. First, provide a detailed explanation of the chosen theory.
b. Second, provide a detailed explanation of the situation to be analyzed.
c. Third, provide a detailed explanation of how the chosen theory would evaluate the situation.
d. Fourth, provide your own analysis as to whether this theory provides an adequate evaluation (including at least one possible counterexample to your argument and how you might refute it)
e. Fifth, develop and defend your own approach to ethical decision-making or evaluation.
(By the way, we mentioned in class discussion that it’s possible to be inconsistent in application of certain ethical principles – like when the person on the tracks in the Trolley Problem is a loved one. This raises the question of whether one can defend applying different approaches to different situations. If so, then defend it.)