Philosophy Paper

INSTRUCTIONS

Contemporary Moral Issues Paper, Spring 2016

· Draft due by Sunday 5/13 at 11:59pm. Email it to me as a double-spaced attachment in Word (or PDF, but preferably Word) to [email protected].

· Lateness is determined by when I receive the attachment and am able to open it. I will send confirmation emails to reassure you. If you do not receive a confirmation reply from me, that means I have not received your paper.

· Final version due May 22th at 11:59pm.

· Late papers will not be accepted. I will just grade your draft, assuming you submitted one.

· 1800 words is the maximum. The minimum is 1600. Your draft should be at least 1200.

· Make sure you have read and understood Kagan, “How to Write a Philosophy Paper.” This article explains what I will be looking for. Among other things,

· There should be a clear statement of your thesis in the first paragraph.

· Write so that someone who has not read the relevant article or articles could understand your paper.

· Explain at least one possible objection to your argument for your thesis, and then defend your argument against that objection.

· Grading will be based on (a) writing, (b) organization, (c) exposition, (d) argumentation, and (e) originality.

· Some of the topics suggested below are more difficult than others. This will be taken into account when I evaluate your paper, so don’t be deterred from selecting a challenging topic.

· See the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy on plagiarism—when in doubt about whether something might count as plagiarism, contact me. You are encouraged to discuss your ideas with others and solicit feedback on drafts, but you must do your own writing.

· If you do outside reading for the paper (articles not assigned in class), be sure to cite those sources. But outside reading is neither required nor recommended. This is not a research paper—I’m interested in your reasoning.

POSSIBLE TOPICS

You are welcome to come up with your own topic, but you must run it by me first.

(1) Jean Hampton in “Selflessness and the Loss of Self,” argues that it can be immoral to make sacrifices for others. What would Hampton say about Julia (the woman described in MacFarquhar, “At Once Rational and Ardent”)? Is Julia failing to display self-respect? Is Hampton’s view plausible or not?

(2) Singer in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” argues that there is no morally relevant difference between Shallow Pond and donating to aid organizations overseas. Explain his argument and its implications. Has he overlooked any morally relevant differences that would threaten his analogy?

(3) Defend meat-eating against Norcross’s arguments in “Puppies, Pigs, and People.”

· Is there a morally relevant difference between our consumption of pigs and chickens and Fred’s torturing puppies?

· If you think the analogy is a good one, you have a choice between believing our consumption and Fred’s torturing are both wrong or believing that our consumption and Fred’s torturing are both okay. If both are both okay, you need to come of with a good reason to believe the interests of human beings in eating meat should count for more than the interests of animals in avoiding suffering and living out their whole lives. Norcross thinks you can’t—try to prove him wrong.

(4) Describe a paternalistic lie (perhaps one you’ve told, or can imagine telling). What would a consequentialist say about your lie? What would a Kantian? Which view is more plausible and why? Or if you think both are mistaken, explain why and develop and defend your own view about the ethics of paternalistic lies.

(5) Gladwell and Sandel have different perspectives on the point of sports. Pick a sport and at least one enhancement, explain why they would disagree on the question of whether the sport should permit that enhancement, and defend your own view on the question.

· If sports are not your thing, you can do the arts instead (perhaps musicians and beta blockers).

(6) Present LaFollette’s argument (in “Licensing Parents”) for licensing parents. Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? If you do find it convincing, develop an objection or two that he has not anticipated, and defend his argument from them. If you do not find it convincing, develop an objection of your own, offer a response on his behalf, and explain why the response is inadequate.

(7) Jane English argues (in “What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?”) that grown children owe their parents nothing. Critique her argument.