Write an essay that (a) reconstructs a philosophical argument from one our readings this semester (see paper topics, below), and (b) presents a cogent critique/objection of that argument (see below, again). In order to complete these objectives, follow the guidelines explained below. Paragraph 1: Introduction. After briefly stating and referring to the theme or topic of your paper, here you will present a thesis statement that specifies (a) the philosophical argument you will be discussing as well as (b) the critique of that argument you will be making. Your thesis statement shows that your argument makes a consistent overall point. An adequate thesis statement might take the following form: Against [insert philosopher’s name] argument that X, I will raise the objection Y. The introduction MUST, to receive full credit, include a thesis statement. 10 points. Paragraph 2: Reconstruction. In this section, you will explain a philosophical argument from the list below. Your task is to summarize a philosophical view in your own words while, at the same time, also providing ample textual evidence and citations for your discussion. (Parenthetical citations with page numbers and/or paragraph numbers at the end of the sentence are sufficient.) Thus, while it is essential for success on this section that you provide textual support for your explanation of a philosopher’s view, it is not enough that you simply quote the philosopher. You must also explain the view in your own words, demonstrating your own understanding of their position. Here your overall task is to show you understand the philosophical position and that you can explain the reasoning of another philosopher. 20 points. Paragraph 3: Objection. Here you will object to the philosopher’s argument. After you’ve shown that you understand what this philosopher is claiming, now it is your turn to present one objection to or critique of that argument. Recall that an objection is either (a) a challenge to the truth of a premise, or (b) a challenge to the overall inference from premises to conclusion. In other words, this is an objection to the philosopher’s reasoning. Your objection must be connected to the argument given by the philosopher as you have previously reconstructed their claims. Here you show you understand how to argue against another point of view. After the second paragraph where you showed you can understand another argument, now you are showing you can effectively argue against someone else. This paragraph should include one well-developed objection (see topics below). Present a real problem with the philosopher’s argument! What flaws are in their reasoning? In what way is their conclusion not well-supported? TOPICS: Your Term Paper, in which you complete all the tasks outlined above, should explain and respond to one of the philosophical arguments referenced below and provide a critique of or objection to that argument. My advice: Pick the author you have disagreed with most this semester. Explain their argument as best you can, and then show how their argument is flawed. 1. Joan Didion’s moral skepticism. Why is Didion a skeptic? And what is wrong with moral skepticism? 2. Ruth Benedict’s moral relativism (relative to culture). Why does Benedict believe in relativism? And what is wrong with her version of relativism? 3. Elizabeth Anscombe’s moral relativism (relative to the belief in God). Why does Anscombe think morality conceptually requires God? And why might that be false? 4. Immanuel Kant’s duty ethics. Why does Kant think morality is bound by the concept of duty and is not related to happiness? Make sure to talk about the Categorical Imperative. How is Kant’s focus on duty problematic? 5. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian ethics. How does Mill’s moral theory separate ethics from questions of motive? How might Mill’s lack of focus on motive strike some readers as suspicious? 6. Aristotle’s virtue theory of ethics. Explain how Aristotle thinks ethics is about flourishing and therefore is not about rules or principles. How is the lack of rules in Aristotle’s theory problematic? 7. Carol Gilligan’s feminist ethics of care. How does Gilligan think “care ethics” supplements and can coexist alongside “justice ethics”? Why is the claim that these two paradigms can coexist problematic (recall our discussion of Antigone)?
