1. The Argument from Motivational Judgment Internalism for Non-Cognitivism.  One interesting argument for Non-Cognitivism in metaethics is the argument from motivational judgment internalism.  Is this a good argument?  (If you are going to write on this topic, you should read our optional reading, Smith, "What is the Moral Problem?")
   
   Your paper should do all of these things:
   
   (i) Explain Non-Cognitivism in metaethics (this is part of the background).
   
   (ii) Explain the Argument from Motivational Judgment Internalism for Non-Cognitivism.  This includes giving the rationale for each premise.  (This is also part of the background.)
   
   (iii) Say whether or not you believe this to be a sound argument (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think it is not a sound argument (this would be your thesis), say which premise you reject, and why (this would be your argument).  If you think it is a sound argument (this would be your thesis), present the best objection or two that you can think of to the argument, and say why you think it or they are unsuccessful (this would be your argument).
   
   
2. Ayer's Reason for Being a Non-Cognitivist.  Explain and evaluate Ayer's reasons for being a non-cognitivist.
   
   Your paper should do all of these things:
   
   (i) Explain Non-Cognitivism in metaethics (this is part of the background).
   
   (ii) Explain why Ayer is a Non-Cognitivist (this is also part of the background).
   
   (iii) Say what you think of Ayer's reason for being a non-cognitivist (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think the reason he gives isn't a good one (this would be your thesis), then explain why (this would be your argument). If you think it is a good reason (this would be your thesis), then present the best objection that you can think of to Ayer's reason, and say why you think that objection is unsuccessful (this would be your argument).
   
   
3. The Arbitrariness Problem.  One of the most important problems for constructivism (or what Huemer calls 'subjectivism') in metaethics is the arbitrariness problem.  Is this a serious problem for this theory?
   
   Your paper should do all of these things:
   
   (i) clearly explain constructivism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
   
   (ii) clearly explain what you take the arbitrariness problem to be (you can use our discussion in class, Huemer's discussion, Antony's discussion, discussions you have found in other sources, or some or all of the above) (this is also part of the background);
   
   (iii) Say what you think of the arbitrariness problem (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think that the arbitrariness problem does not succeed in refuting all forms of constructivism (this would be your thesis), then explain why (this would be your argument).  If you think it does succeed (this would be your thesis), then present the best objection that you can think of to the arbitrariness problem, and say why you think that objection is unsuccessful (this would be your argument).
   
   
4. The Open-Question Argument.  One of the most important problems for analytic reductionism in metaethics is the open-question argument.  This argument is presented in different forms by G.E. Moore, A.J. Ayer, Michael Huemer, and others.  Is this a genuine problem for this theory?
   
   Your paper should do all of these things:
   
   (i) clearly explain analytic reductionism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
   
   (ii) pick one version of the open question argument (you can use our discussion in class, Huemer's discussion, or the passages in Moore or Ayer) and clearly explain what you take that version of the open-question argument to be (this is also part of the background);
   
   (iii) Say whether or not you believe this to be a sound argument (this would be your thesis), and why (this would be your argument).  More specifically, if you think it is not a sound argument (this would be your thesis), say which part of the argument you reject, and why (this would be your argument).  If you think it is a sound argument (this would be your thesis), present the best objection that you can think of to the argument, and say why you think it is unsuccessful (this would be your argument).
   
   
5. The Argument from Queerness.  One argument against Non-Naturalism in metaethics that we didn't study in class is J.L. Mackie's "argument from queerness" (Mackie, pp. 38-42).  Mackie seems to make several distinct arguments in these passages.  Explain just one of them as best you can, as well as the theory it is targeting.  Is the argument any good?
   
   Your paper should do all of these things:
   
   (i) clearly explain non-naturalism in metaethics (this is part of the background);
   
   (ii) pick one of Mackie's arguments in sec. 9 of his chapter, and explain the argument; put it in a valid* line-by-line format; supply quotations from the text to support your interpretation of the argument (this is also part of the background);
   
   (iii) issue a clear verdict as to whether Mackie's argument succeeds in casting serious doubt on non-naturalism (this would be your thesis), and back this verdict up (this would be your argument);
   
   (iv) if you have space, you can consider a response that your opponent -- either Mackie or the non-naturalist, depending on what you say in (iii) -- might make, and explain why you think this response does not succeed.
   
   
6. The True Metaethic. The main theories in metaethics that we have studied are non-cognitivism, constructivism, reductionism, non-naturalism, and nihilism.  Which of these approaches do you think is most likely to be true.  Why?
   
   Your paper should do all these things:
   
   (i) clearly explain and fill in the details of the theory you support;
   
   (ii) explain your main reason or reasons for thinking this theory to be the right one (this might involve explaining problems with other theories);
   
   (iii) identify and clearly explain what you take to be the strongest problem or objection to your theory;
   
   (iv) defend your theory against this objection.

 

* If you need a review of validity and other logical concepts, this set of slides contains an explanation of validity and related notions; see especially the slide with "Some common valid argument forms."