Philosophy 212

The short essay assignment is a minimum of 200 of your own words (i.e., minus all quotations). Reference the syllabus for detailed information regarding the short writing assignment. Short writing assignments must be no less than two hundred (200) of your own words. This means that quotations do not count against the two hundred words. I will not even read assignments shorter than the required minimum of 200 words (I use a program to monitor word-count) and you will automatically receive zero (0) points for any such assignments. I expect a professionally written essay that is well formulated, without spelling and grammatical errors. I will deduct points for sloppily written essays (see the rubric below). In your essay you should address the question posed directly and thoroughly. You do not need to waste too much space on background unless the question of the essay specifically demands such background. term. (The rubric contains four columns; if you do not see all four resize your browser)

        0

        1

       1.5

        1.75

       2

Criteria

Less than 200

     200+

     200+

      200+

      200+

Grammar, spelling, punctuation:

10 or more mistakes

8 or more mistakes

6 or more  mistakes

4 or more mistakes

       0-3

mistakes

Clarity:

Completely unclear

Very unclear

Moderately unclear

Somewhat unclear

   Clear

Structure:

Completely unstructured

Very unstructured

Moderately unstructured

Somewhat unstructured

Well structured

Scope:

Completely misses the essay’s question 

Misses large part of the essay’s question

Misses aimportant aspects of the essay’s question

Misses some aspect of the essay’s question

Covers all parts of the essay’s question

Assignment:

Velleman (2007) offers a consequentialist argument against “establishing an institutional right to die.” (Velleman, 2007, p. 81. My emphasis). By ‘institutional right’ he means a public policy, or law, which (at least) permits euthanasia. Vellemanmaintains that such an institutional right may actually harm some patients. On the other hand, Velleman does concede that establishing laws that explicitly prohibit the option of euthanasia are liable to genuinely harm certain patients. He concludes that perhaps the best policy is not to have any explicit policy at all: i.e., what I called in my notes the no-policy policy.Criticallyexamine Velleman’s argument and state whether you think that Velleman’s argument is cogent; whether his no-policy policy regarding euthanasia is defensible; whether it is a workable solution; and whether it is compatible with a consequentialistapproach.