Philosophy final argumentative paper

Grey | Summer 2020

PHL 101: Final Paper Throughout the semester, we have practiced analyzing, evaluating, and constructing arguments. The final paper for the course will require you to draw on each of these skills.

First, you must select a substantive philosophical claim made in an essay we read for this course. In your final paper, you should do all of the following:

a) Construct an argument either for or against the chosen philosophical claim. Your presentation of the argument should be concise and to the point, while still containing enough detail—including clarificatory examples—to make sure the line of reasoning is clear and easy to follow. It should also be clear how specifically the premises support your conclusion. (The easiest way to do this is by including an argument outline in addition to a more conventional presentation of your argument in plain English.)

b) Present two possible objections that could be raised against your argument. You should explore the most reasonable places that someone could resist your reasoning in (a). The presentation of these objections should make it clear why it is reasonable to take them seriously. (If the objection is based on absurd premises only endorsed by Flat Earthers, you need a stronger objection.) Be as specific as you can about how each objection works: which premise of your argument does each objection target?

c) Present replies to each objection. As we’ve seen, part of what it means to take an objection seriously is to think about what the best reply to it would be. After each objection, take a paragraph or two to respond in defense of your argument.

Here are examples substantive philosophical claims from each week of the course:

i) The skeptic’s claim that nothing can be known, explored by Michael Huemer (243).

ii) The compatibilist’s claim, defended by Harry Frankfurt, that it may be “causally determined that a person enjoys a free will” (20).

iii) The bundle theory of personhood, which (as Derek Parfit puts it) “In a sense…denies the existence of persons” (93).

iv) The claim that the Turing test—proposed in his essay, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”—should replace the question, “Can a machine think?”

v) Epicurus’ claim that we should not fear death, since “death is nothing to us” (par. 3).

vi) Susan Wolf’s claim that “a life is meaningful insofar as its subjective attractions are to things or goals that are objectively worthwhile” (34-35).

You don’t need to choose one of these claims to write about—these are just examples to show you the sort of claims that a philosopher would be interested in evaluating. Length: 1200-1400 words, or 4-5 pages typed.

Deadline: the paper is to be uploaded to D2L before midnight on Thursday, June 25.

Reminder: Your paper should be made anonymous. Only your PID number should be on it.