phil

Short Paper #1
1500 words minimum/maximum (approximately 4 to 41⁄2 pages) Due 9/26/16 **New Date** to iLearn by 11:59pm

The assignment:

Your task is to compare the views – and the reasons explicitly given or implied or suggested for these views – presented in two of the following texts by at least two different authors: Plato's (1) Euthyphro, (2) Apology, (3) Crito; (4) King's “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”; and (5) Lao Tzu's “Living as Water” on one of the following issues: (a) the basis for judgments of good and bad conduct; (b) the good life; or (c) the obligations of the citizen.

Here’s how I’d approach the assignment:

Step 1: Select the issue you want to discuss. It’s going to be either (a), (b), or (c) above. Choose only ONE topic.

Step 2: Figure out which two texts provide the clearest discussion of the issue. Here are the text options:

#1 Select ONE Platonic dialogue (either the Euthyphro OR the Apology OR the Crito) AND King

#2. Select ONE Platonic dialogue (either the Euthyphro OR the Apology OR the Crito) AND Lao Tzu

#3 Select King and Lao Tzu

You may only use two authors and you can’t use more than one text by any author.

Step 3: Determine what the fundamental view is that the author presents with respect to the issue you’ve selected. You immediately ought to be able to think what the “answer” is. You also should be able to state very briefly and clearly what this main “answer” is. Even if there’s some nuance involved, it’ll be obvious that the author presents a nuanced discussion of the topic. Some texts might address more than one issue. For instance, it’s quite obvious that King’s “Letter” addresses both options (a) and (c). Lao Tzu could easily be understood as addressing all three topics, i.e., (a), (b), and (c). And it’s crystal clear that in the Crito Plato represents Socrates as weighing in on (c), the obligations of the citizen.

Step 4: Reread the texts you’ve selected and work on ascertaining WHY the author thinks his view is correct. You’ll need to pay close attention to the arguments adduced [look up this word if you don’t know what it means!] for the position you’re going to discuss. What are the premises? What are underlying but implicit assumptions, if any? If the premises, i.e., the

PHIL 101 Fall 2016 Dr. Pamela Hood Short Paper #1 Pg. 2

reasons or rationale for his view, are only implied or suggested, you’ll need to let the reader know this. As thoroughly as possible, articulate those reasons yourself on behalf of the author. Be sure that you are able to support every single reason or rationale you present. Adequate support starts with textual evidence. Ask yourself, “Where in the text does the author mention or discuss the topic? How does the author make his case? What are the essential elements of his position? What sorts of things does he assume? What’s his overall mindset about the issue? How and why are these essential aspects of his position related to your discussion of the issue? Remember: just because the author talks about X, that doesn’t mean that X is at all relevant to his position on this particular issue or that it is relevant to your presentation of his view.

The important thing is that you be able to express the reasons, justification, or rationale the author has for holding the particular view about either issue (a), (b), or (c).

Step 5: After you’ve done Step 4 for BOTH authors, it ought to be really easy to compare and contrast their views. Do they agree or disagree? If so, how so? If you have space feel free to let the reader know whose position you agree with or whose position you believe has the most merit.

Formatting instructions and deductions

• Name, student ID, class hour single spaced in the header

• 1 inch margins on all sides

• Page numbers in the header

• Text of the essay double spaced

• 12 point, standard font
  10 point deduction for each violation of the above

  Grammar deductions
  1 point for each grammatical error

  Word count
  10 point deduction for word count violation. Your goal is to come as close as possible to the 1500 words limit. Try not to go under or over 1500 words. A little bit over or under is OK.

  Quotations
  10 point deduction per quote exceeding ten words. I prefer that you not quote at all from any source. Rather, put the text into your own words. You may only quote from our course readings. If you do quote, be sure to cite the quote in the manner appropriate to your discipline. If you don't have a discipline yet, select a citation style of your choice (APA, MLA, Turabian, or Chicago). If you have no clue what these four styles are please Google them. There are lots of examples of these citation styles on the Web. Footnotes, endnotes, or a works cited page (if you include one) do not apply to your word count. The word count only applies to the essay itself.

   

   

   

   

  The Laws of Athens and The Argument Against Escape: Crito 50a-54e
  1. Escaping from prison is tantamount to destroying the Laws and the State (50b)

  2. No state can continue to exist if its laws have no force and are overturned by private citizens (50b)

  3. Suppose that it is the case that if the state wrongs one by passing a faulty judgment at trial, one may then destroy the laws. (50c)

  4. Either one agrees to abide by whatever judgments the state makes or one intends to abide by some judgments but not others. (50c)

  5. The Laws have satisfactorily provided for Socrates' marriage of his parents, his life, the upbringing and education of his children. (50c-50e)

  6. The Laws are similar to parents in that they care for and provided all things necessary for its citizens. (50e)

  7. Children are subservient to their parents. (50e)

  8. Thus, citizens should be subservient to the State. (50e) sub-conclusion [6-7]

  9. Only those with an equality of rights may retaliate against someone. (50e)

  10. Therefore, children may not retaliate against their parents. (51a) Sub-conclusion [7, 9]

  11. Compared to one's parents, the State is to be held in greater honor and respect. (51b, 51c)

  12. So, citizens in no way may retaliate against (or destroy) the State. (51a) sub- conclusion [8-11]

  13. Every citizen has the right to persuade the State that it has made a faulty judgment or obey its Laws (51b)

  14. If a citizen cannot persuade the State, the citizen must obey its orders. (51b)

  15. The State's order may include punishments (beating or imprisonment) or orders to go to war (to be wounded or killed) (51b)

  16. Thus, both in war and in the law courts and everywhere else, you must obey the State or persuade them. (51c) Sub-conclusion [13-15]

  17. If any Athenian is unsatisfied with the Laws of Athens, he may take his property and leave. (51e)

  18. If a citizen remains within the State, that citizen agrees to abide by the Laws of the State. (51e)

  19. Anyone who disobeys one's parents or guardians is guilty of wrong-doing. (51e)

  20. Anyone who promises obedience but neither obeys nor persuades the State is guilty of wrong-doing. (51e).

  21. Socrates has been content to remain in Athens and has not left the State to live elsewhere. (52a-c, 52e-53a)

  22. Socrates refused an offer of exile (i.e., leaving the State) with the State's permission. (52c)

  23. Therefore, by staying in the State, Socrates has an obligation to obey the State. Sub-conclusion [17, 18, 21- 22]

  24. Because he was convicted at trial, Socrates did not persuade the State. [**but see Crito 54c]

  25. Thus, by escaping Socrates would be breaking his agreement with the State, injuring the Laws, and be guilty of harming the State. (54c) sub-conclusion [19-20, 23-24]

  26. Socrates is opposed to harming or injuring others, even in retaliation (49e) and advocates fulfilling all one's agreements (49e-50a)

  27. Therefore, Socrates should not escape. Conclusion [23, 25-26]