paper

PHL 118: Moral Problems

A brief outline of the paper should be handed in on Thursday February 11th

General topic: the general topic must be on a moral/ethical topic and the paper should be concerned with raising and discussing one or more moral claims about the issue you have chosen.  Of course this will mean bringing up and evaluating reasons for and/or against the moral claim(s) under discussion.

Length: 6-10 typewritten pages (1600-2800 words).

Style of writing:  Aim at writing as clearly as possible, using your own words.  Try to organize your whole paper into clear sections and paragraphs.  You may write informally and use “I” (as in e.g. “I want to argue that...”) if you wish.  Check your English and your spelling.  Watch out for the spelling of “argument”! 

Sources and citations: You may of course use sources, but, if you do, make sure to digest them thoroughly.  I would like to see you put in a lot of your own thinking into the paper, where this includes of course your own criticisms of others’ views and arguments.  If you mention a view or argument, etc. which you got from a certain source, make sure to cite it.  You may use any system for citing sources, etc. that you wish (e.g. the APA system or the MLA system), as long as you are consistent.  At the end of your paper include a bibliography of sources you have used.

Do not plagiarize!

General Areas to choose from:

Abortion

Euthanasia

Capital punishment

Affirmative Action

Homosexual Acts

Contemporary attitudes towards sex (including hooking up)

Animals

War

Terrorism

Paternalism

Drugs

Torture

Economic activity

Specific topic: The specific topic of your paper (like that of your presentation but on a different topic) may be any of the following:

1. Clearly stating and defending a specific moral claim by giving and defending the best reasons for the claim and attacking the best reasons against the claim.  Example: In my paper I am going to argue for the view that active euthanasia is always wrong.  I shall explain what I mean by “active euthanasia,” and then give what I think are decisive reasons why this kind of euthanasia is wrong.  I shall briefly look at what an opponent might say in reply and show that her reply fails.

2. Examining and evaluating in some detail one or more arguments for or against a specific moral claim.  Example: In my paper I am going to examine in detail the argument that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural.  I shall show that the word “unnatural” can mean a number of things, but that whatever meaning is given to the word the argument does not succeed.

3. Carefully summarizing and/or evaluating an article, or parts of an article, e.g. an argument discussed in an article, that we have read.  Example: I am going to examine Rachel’s argument (in W) that there is no important moral distinction between active euthanasia and merely letting die.  I shall first show why his argument is important, second state his argument carefully, and finally show that the argument is a bad one.

4.  Moral discussion of a particular example or case: e.g. I am going to examine the first case in which Kevorkian participated, the Janet Atkins case, and I shall argue that although what Kevorkian did was morally all right, this kind of case should not be made legal.

Some examples of papers:

Remember these are just suggestions.

1.  A critique of Noonan’s view that the fetus acquires the RTL at the moment of conception.  I shall describe Noonan’s main arguments for this view and show that they are not good ones.

2.  A detailed examination of Thompson’s like-cases argument that abortion in the case of pregnancy caused by rape is morally all right because it is relevantly similar to the case of detaching yourself from the violinist.  After describing the argument in detail, I shall argue that it does not succeed because there are important differences between the two cases.

3. A criticism of three of the strongest anti-homosexual arguments: in this paper I am going to discuss the three arguments that homosexual acts are wrong because they are unnatural, because my religion condemns such acts, and because allowing homosexual acts will increase the spread of AIDS.   I shall show that all of these arguments fail.

4. An attack on UM’s undergraduate admissions program: after describing this preferential treatment program, I shall argue that it is morally wrong.

5. An invented or actual case in which terrorism is morally all right.  My paper will be divided into two parts.  In the first part I shall develop a plausible definition of “terrorist action.”  In the second part I shall describe in detail a scenario in which we are thinking of engaging in a terrorist action against an enemy and go on to argue that such an action would be morally permissible. I shall also look at and criticize arguments that such an action would be wrong.

6. Limits of the free market.  After discussing in some detail what counts as a free-market exchange between two or more parties, I shall argue that there are limits on such exchanges: there are some free-market exchanges that are just morally wrong.  I shall describe in detail a number of examples of such morally wrong transactions.  See Sandel.

7.  A detailed discussion of the Divine Command Theory.  After describing the theory in great detail, I shall examine the pros and cons of the theory and conclude that ….   See Arthur article in the big book and Chapter 4 of Rachels.