Paper Topics

Introduction to Ethics, fall 2007

Instructor: Alan Tomhave

Choose one of the following options and write an essay of roughly 1000 words (12 pt font,
preferably Times New Roman or Arial, standard margins). The essays should be grammatically
clean and careful consideration should be given to the structure of the essay. Papers are due
Monday, December 3rd, at the start of lecture. Rough drafts are due to partners Monday,
November 26th.

Please respond to one of the following prompts:

1. In section 1.3 of The Element of Moral Philosophy (pg.5-8), James Rachels presents the
case of Jodie and Mary. Present and evaluate the arguments given for each side. If you
agree with the court’s decision, present what you see as the strongest objection that can
be offered against it and explain why it is mistaken. If you disagree with the court’s
decision, explain why and offer your best argument in opposition to the court.

2. In “Feeding the Hungry,” Jan Narveson argues along the following lines: "If the fact that
others are starving is not our fault, we have no duty of justice to aid them. If we have no
duty of justice to aid them, we may not be forced to do so. The fact that others are
starving is not our fault. Therefore, we may not be forced to aid them." Are the premises
true with regard to those in need in other countries? In our own country? Are we
currently being forced to aid these groups, when the gov't taxes us and uses some of those
funds to support welfare programs here and foreign aid? Is it wrong for the gov't to do
so? If you agree with Narveson, offer what you view to be a legitimate criticism of his
position and offer a solution to that criticism. If you disagree with Narveson, where does
he go wrong? And what, if anything, can we learn from his article?

For general advice on writing a philosophy paper, please see the following website:

http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/writing.html

Also, keep the following in mind:

• Before the first page is finished, the reader should know your position, what you are
going to talk about, and what the structure of the paper is. Failure on this account will
result in a 6 point drop from the overall grade for each item.
• Do not use a “running-start,” doing so will result in a 6 point drop from the overall grade.
• Be clear and don’t assume that the reader remembers everything from the article.
• Pick only one or possibly two criticisms. Fully explain your idea. It is infinitely better to
fully explain one criticism rather than offering many. It should clearly address one point
of the author about whom you are writing.
• Be fair to the author’s position. Don’t build a straw-man that you can easily tear down.
• Start early! Write a rough draft that you can leave for a few days and then come back to
after you have continued to think about the issue. Something you initially felt was very
clearly explained might not appear so clear later.
 • Cite your sources. If you are quoting from the book, just put a page number and the book
in parenthesis after the quote (e.g., “RT, 234”). If you use an outside source, please
footnote the source, providing the website if that is the source.

Look at the above website, it gives clear examples of ways to improve your paper.

Procedure:
Send a rough draft to your partner by the 26th. Please do this through e-mail. Your partner will
then make comments on your paper by using the Track-Changes option and saving the paper
with a new file name. After commenting, your partner will send the new file back to you via e-
mail. I WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE DRAFTS UNTIL YOU TURN IN YOUR PAPER
TO ME. When turning in your paper please give me hard copies of both the final draft and the
draft with your partner’s comments. Your grade will take into account the revisions to the final
draft.

Partners, please pay careful attention to the 4 items listed above with explicit point deductions.
Comments should be on structural issues as well as philosophical issues. Your job as a
commenter is not to simply tell your partner how great his or her paper is; your job is to provide
critical feedback that will help your partner produce a better paper. I will look for such things
when evaluating your comments.