PHIL 1100 -- Ethics (honors)
Fall 2021
Prof. Chris Heathwood
University of Colorado Boulder

 

Second Paper Assignment:

30 points

 due by email, as an MS Word attachment, on Monday, December 6 at 11:59 p.m.


Write an 800-1,200 word (roughly 2.5-4 page) paper in which you defend a thesis of your choosing related to our course.  You are free to come up with your own topic and thesis, but because this can be hard, below I have provided a bunch of paper prompts, each in the form of a question that your paper might try to answer.  Such a paper would include a statement of your answer to the question (that would be your thesis), and then a presentation of the reasons you think this answer is the right one (that would be your argument).  You should also provide any necessary background.

Whatever topic you choose, indicate your topic in the title of your paper.  For a couple of the questions, I'll give you some hints as to what a paper on this question should include.  Read over these hints even if you don't answer that particular question; doing so will help you with whatever question you do answer.

Before you begin, you need to read the Philosophy Paper FAQ.  It is very important that you read over this carefully and more than once.  It will be impossible to do well on the paper if you don't.
  1. Do any of the arguments that we studied against Cultural Relativism refute that theory?

  2. Is Ross's Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism sound?
Thesis: "Ross's Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism is unsound."
Background: explain and illustrate Act Utilitarianism; Present and explain Ross's Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism (pp. 34-35 of Ross)
Argument: Explain which premise of Ross's argument is false, and lay out in detail your reasons for thinking it is false.
Objection: If you have space, you can consider and respond to a reply that Ross might make to your argument.
  1. Is the following argument against Rossian Pluralism sound?
P1. If we all successfully follow Rossian Pluralism, we'll be less happy as a whole than if we all successfully follow utilitarianism.
P2. It would be irrational for us to follow a theory under which we would be less happy as a whole.
C1. Therefore, it would be irrational for us to follow Rossian Pluralism.
P3. If it would be irrational for us to follow some moral theory, then that theory cannot be the correct moral theory.
C2. Therefore, Rossian Pluralism cannot be the correct moral theory.
If you choose to answer this question, be sure to give what you take to be the rationales behind each of the three premises in this argument.
  1. Act Utilitarianism and the Nozickian Rights Theory give different answers to the question of what to do in Tännsjö's Anna case.  Which theory gives the right answer?  Can the theory that gives the wrong answer be revised in a plausible way to get the right answer?
  1. Is Robinson's argument for slave reparations sound?
  1. Is Marquis's argument for the wrongness of abortion sound?
Thesis: "Marquis's argument for the wrongness of abortion is unsound."
Background: Explain Marquis's argument.
Argument: Explain which premise of Marquis's argument is false, and why.
Objections: If you have space, consider and respond to a possible reply that Marquis might give.
  1. What is the best theory of the wrongness of killing?

  2. Does Marquis's argument for the wrongness of abortion commit him to the view that contraception is also wrong?

  3. Do any of Horowitz's objections to slave reparations cast doubt on Robinson's argument in favor of slave reparations?

  4. Does the Euthyphro objection to Divine Command Theory apply equally well to Cultural Relativism?

  5. Does Rationalism about who has rights go wrong with respect to newborn babies and/or severely cognitively disabled adults?  If so, what theory of who has rights should replace it, what does this new theory imply about animals, and what are the wider implications for some of the common ways in which we treat animals (e.g., as food, as subjects in scientific experiments, as pets)?

  6. Can there be right and wrong without God?  If not, why not?  If so, how?

  7. Does the desire approach to the wrongness of killing survive Marquis's objections to it?

  8. Is Ross's list of prima facie duties incomplete?

  9. Is there a morally relevant difference between the case of slave reparations and the case of the company that spilled toxic waste that casts doubt on Robinson's case for slave reparations?
Important note:  For some of the questions above, one of the possible answers to it could be defended simply by repeating the views of one of the philosophers that we read.  Consider, for example, #5, the question whether  Robinson's argument for slave reparations sound?  If you answer Yes, you might think that you could just present Robinson's argument and give the rationales that he would give for its premises.  But that would not be enough.  If you think that the argument is sound, that's fine, but in that case you have to present what you think is the strongest objection to the argument and then explain why that objection ultimately fails.  Your paper can't just be a "book report" of the views of others.  You have to demonstrate your own original thinking. 

This same point applies to other of the questions above too.  Consider, for example, #2, the question whether Ross's Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism is sound.  If you think the answer is Yes, that's fine, but in that case you have to present what you think is the strongest objection to the argument and then explain why that objection ultimately fails.  And likewise for #6, the question whether Marquis's argument for the wrongness of abortion is sound.  If you think the answer is Yes, that's fine, but in that case you have to present what you think is the strongest objection to the argument and then explain why that objection ultimately fails.  You get the idea.

If you seek assistance while writing your essay, please email me, visit me in office hours, make an appointment to see me, or visit CU's Writing Center.  And don't forget to look at my Philosophy Paper FAQ!