PHIL 3100 -- Ethical Theory
Fall 2018
Prof. Chris Heathwood
TA: Julia Uhr
University of Colorado Boulder

 

First Paper Assignment:

Moore's No-Disagreement Argument

due Monday, October 8th at Noon


Philosophy Paper FAQ.  Read this first!  Though it is more applicable to our class's second paper, which will be a more open-ended one.  For this first paper, you will be writing on a pre-assigned topic.  We are providing you with both the topic and the structure for your paper.

There are no specific word-limits for this paper.  Just do what we ask you to do below and don't feel the need to add in anything extra.

Submit your paper by noon on Monday, October 8th to Julia.Uhr@Colorado.EDU either by email (in Word format) or by sharing a Google Doc.  Late papers lose 1/3 of a letter grade each day they are late (see #15 on the Philosophy Paper FAQ for more details on the late-paper policy).

Your topic is Moore's No-Disagreement Argument against Cultural Relativism (i.e., societal constructivism) in metaethics.  For your thesis, pick one of these two options (whichever one you think is true):

OPTION 1: "When directly applied to Cultural Relativism, Moore's No-Disagreement Argument fails, but a modified version of the argument succeeds in refuting Cultural Relativism."

OPTION 2: "When directly applied to Cultural Relativism, Moore's No-Disagreement Argument fails, and the version of it tailor-made to apply to Cultural Relativism also fails."

In the title or header of your paper, indicate whether you have taken "OPTION 1" or "OPTION 2."

Your paper should do these things:

  1. Have an introductory paragraph in which you tell the reader what your topic is and what your thesis is.
  2. Provide the necessary background.  To do this:
    1. Explain Moore's No-Disagreement Argument against Humean Subjectivism. This will require you to:
      1. Briefly explain Humean Subjectivism.  (In addition to stating the doctrine, say something about it in your own words to get it across to the reader.)
      2. State and explain Moore's No-Disagreement Argument against it.  In doing this, be sure to provide the rationale for each premise of the argument.  (There is no need to provide the rationale for the conclusion; the argument itself provides that.  There is also no need to evaluate this argument.)
    2. State and explain Cultural Relativism.  In doing so, you can consult both Huemer's and Moore's discussions of the doctrine.  Be sure to make it very clear what the semantic portion of Cultural Relativism is, since this is the part of the theory that Moore's argument targets.
  3. Defend your thesis.
    1. The first part of your thesis is the claim that "when directly applied to Cultural Relativism, Moore's No-Disagreement Argument fails."  To defend this part of your thesis:
      1. State and explain the argument you get when you plug Cultural Relativism in for Humean Subjectivism in Moore's No-Disagreement Argument against Humean Subjectivism.
      2. Explain why the resulting argument is unsound. (To do so, clearly identify which premise is false and explain why it is false in a way that would persuade any reasonable reader.)
    2. If you chose OPTION 1, then the second part of your thesis is that a modified version of Moore's argument succeeds in refuting Cultural Relativism.  To defend this part of your thesis:
      1. State and explain this modified argument.  In doing this, be sure to provide the rationale for each premise of the argument.  (There is no need to provide the rationale for the conclusion; the argument itself provides that.)  Present the rationales for these premises in the most persuasive way you can.
    3. If you chose OPTION 2, then the second part of your thesis is that a version of Moore's argument tailor-made to apply to Cultural Relativism also fails.  To defend this part of your thesis:
      1. State and explain this argument.  In doing this, be sure to provide the rationale for each premise of the argument.  (There is no need to provide the rationale for the conclusion; the argument itself provides that.)
      2. Explain why this argument is unsound.  To do so, clearly identify which premise is false and explain why it is false in the most persuasive way you can.

Be sure to follow the guidelines on the Philosophy Paper FAQ.