Logic

PHL 1010 – Summer 2021

Critical Thinking “Jury” Paper (100 points)

Overview & Purpose:

Philosophy has been called “the great conversation.” Inspired by that idea, this paper will require you to use your critical

thinking skills in order to analyze one modern philosopher by putting him “on trial” before the “jury” of Socrates, Plato,

and/or Aristotle. What would these ancient Greek philosophers have to say about a later philosopher’s ideas?

You can write this paper as a traditional five paragraph essay or you can choose to write a “creative writing” style of

paper in which the philosophers appear as characters in a story or dialogue/play. You can even make yourself a character

in your story/play.

Getting Started:

1. Select one paper topic from the approved list (see below).

2. Select an ancient Greek philosophical judge/jury (see below; your choices are limited by your topic). You must choose at least one Greek philosopher (Socrates, Plato, and/or Aristotle) to serve as a “judge” or “jury member” in

your paper, but depending on your topic and preference, you could also choose to include the others.

3. Select only one modern philosopher to go “on trial” before your ancient Greek judge or jury (see below; your choices are limited by your topic).

Paper Topics:

1. What is the relationship between the body and the mind? [Week 11-12]

Ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates (Plato’s Apology); Plato (Republic – Allegory of the Cave and/or Republic –

on justice and happiness)

Modern philosopher: Descartes (Meditations I, II, and VI) or John Searle (“Can Computers Think?”)

2. Do happiness and the virtuous/moral life go together (if so, in what way)? Why or why not? [Week 13-14]

Ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates (Plato’s Apology); Plato (Republic – on justice and happiness); Aristotle

(Nicomachean Ethics)

Modern philosopher: Immanuel Kant (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and

“On a Supposed Right to Lie From Altruistic Motives”) or John Stuart Mill (Excerpts from Utilitarianism)

3. Do we always have to obey the laws of our society? Why or why not? [Week 15]

Ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates (Plato’s Apology); Plato (Republic – on justice and happiness)

Modern philosopher: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae on law) or Martin Luther King, Jr. (“Letter from a

Birmingham Jail”)

Format, Citations, Works Cited:

• Name, Date, PHL 1010, and “Critical Thinking Jury Paper” should all appear at the top left-hand side of your paper.

• The text of the paper should be in a classic size 12 font and double-spaced with 1-inch margins.

• The paper must include quotes from the relevant assigned readings to support your analysis and explanation of the philosophers’ ideas, accompanied by in-text citations. The assigned readings you reference in your paper will

depend on which topic and philosophers you have chosen to write about. For instance, if you select Topic #1 and

Descartes as your modern philosopher, you will need to include relevant quotations from Descartes’s Meditations as

well as from one of Plato’s works listed. ***No additional outside research needs to be done; you should write your

paper taking into consideration only the relevant assigned readings and online lectures. I have also posted two short

additional sources that you can use if you want to; they are on Socrates’s understanding of law and Plato’s view of

the mind/soul.

• Include a Works Cited list at the end of your paper. It must include an entry for each source that you referred to in your paper. Thus there will be at least two works listed (one from the ancient Greek thinker, one from the modern).

• ***See the “Citing Sources in the Critical Thinking Jury Paper” document for more details on how to format your in-text citations and Works Cited list!

Length & Structure:

• The paper must be at least 5 paragraphs long (which usually translates to +/-three pages). It can be longer than this, but it should not exceed eight pages.

• A “creative writing” style of paper will look somewhat different from a traditional 5-paragraph essay, but it should still include all of the following elements in some way:

o B) Introduction: Include a thesis statement that states the position you will be defending in your paper. [Tips: what have you discovered—does your chosen judge/jury agree or disagree with your modern philosopher’s

views on the topic you’ve chosen? To what extent? In what ways? Why or why not?]

o C) Judge/Jury’s views on topic: Discuss the ancient philosopher’s ideas on your selected topic by identifying and explaining relevant and important concepts, summarizing important arguments, and drawing upon relevant

quotes from the readings.

o D) Modern philosopher’s views on topic: Discuss the modern philosopher’s ideas on the topic by identifying and explaining relevant and important concepts, summarizing important arguments, and drawing upon relevant

quotes from the readings.

o E) Critique: What would your judge/jury have to say about your modern philosopher’s views on the topic? Would they agree or disagree, and why? In what ways and to what extent? What “verdict” would Socrates,

Plato, and/or Aristotle give to your modern philosopher? This is the place to use your critical thinking skills.

o F) Conclusion: Do you agree more with your modern philosopher’s ideas or with your judge/jury or some of both or neither? Why? Make sure to include your reasons. Possible criteria you might use in forming your

opinion include the “4 criteria for evaluating ideas” that we studied earlier this semester: 1) the clarity of the

philosopher’s concepts, 2) the rational coherence (logical consistency) of their arguments, 3) whether or not

their ideas are confirmed by facts and experience, and 4) the implications of their views for daily living/ethics.

Due Date:

• Jury Papers are due online on Blackboard by 11:59 p.m. on Saturday, July 31. For no reason can a paper be submitted after this deadline, since the term ends on this date.

• Your paper will automatically be checked by “SafeAssign,” a plagiarism check software. You should be able to review your SafeAssign score shortly after you upload your paper. You can upload your paper multiple times before

the due date if you need to; I will grade your most recent submission.

• Your paper must be submitted in a supported file type: .doc, .docx, .docm, .ppt, .pptx, .odt, .txt, .rtf, .pdf, and .html file formats only. (*Note: NO google docs! Google docs do not open on Blackboard and will not be graded).

Grading Rubric

A B C D F 100

pts Meets expectations

with excellence

Meets expectations

very well

Meets expectations

adequately

Meets some

expectations

Fails to

meet expectations 5 Correctly formatted –

no issues (part A)

Very few minor format

issues (part A)

Some format issues

(part A)

Some significant

format issues (part A)

Many significant

format issues (part A) 10 Exhibits clear and

complete intro

paragraph (part B)

Exhibits clear and mostly

complete intro paragraph

(part B)

Exhibits intro paragraph,

but might be incomplete

or lack clarity (part B)

Exhibits intro

paragraph but lacks

required info (part B)

Does not exhibit

clear intro paragraph

(part B) 20 Explains philosopher’s

ideas clearly, correctly,

and in appropriate

depth

(part C)

Explains philosopher’s

ideas clearly, correctly, and

with some depth

(part C)

Explains philosopher’s

ideas mostly correctly but

may lack depth or clarity

(part C)

Attempts to explain

philosopher’s ideas, but

does so incorrectly

(part C)

Does not explain

philosopher’s ideas

correctly, clearly, or

in depth (part C)

20 Explains philosopher’s

ideas clearly, correctly,

and in appropriate

depth

(part D)

Explains philosopher’s

ideas clearly, correctly, and

with some depth

(part D)

Explains philosopher’s

ideas mostly correctly but

may lack depth or clarity

(part D)

Attempts to explain

philosopher’s ideas, but

does so incorrectly

(part D)

Does not explain

philosopher’s ideas

correctly, clearly, or

in depth (part D)

20 Displays careful,

thoughtful, and

detailed analysis of

philosopher’s ideas

according to chosen

judge/jury (part E)

Displays generally good

analysis of philosopher’s

ideas according to chosen

judge/jury (part E)

Displays some adequate

analysis of philosopher’s

ideas according to chosen

judge/jury (part E)

Displays poor analysis

of philosopher’s ideas

according to chosen

judge/jury (part E)

Does not analyze

philosopher’s ideas,

or does so without

reference to

judge/jury (part E)

15 Offers & supports

opinion with

thoughtful and detailed

reasons

(part F)

Offers & supports opinion,

but might lack some detail

or provides only one

reason (part F)

Offers & attempts to

support opinion, but lacks

detail or sufficient

support (part F)

Offers an opinion, but

does not support it

(part F)

Does not offer or

support opinion

(part F)

10 Has few (if any) errors

of syntax, spelling,

grammar, or citation

Has some minor errors of

syntax, spelling, grammar,

or citation

Has multiple errors of

syntax, spelling,

grammar, or citation

Has serious problems

w/ syntax, spelling,

grammar or no citations

Has severe problems

with syntax, spelling,

or grammar & no citations