Introduction to Philosophy
First Summer Semester, 2018
Jacksonville University
Dr. Scott Kimbrough
Topics for First Paper
Instructions:
Write
a maximum three page paper on one of the topics below. There is no minimum
length. Papers are to be typed and double-spaced, with reasonable margins. Papers
are due Tuesday, May 29th. Late papers will be penalized 5
points per week-day late.
The
goal of this paper is to evaluate objections to a philosophical theory. This
involves three basic tasks:
- Set up the debate. Using textual
evidence, describe the relevant claims made by the philosopher. Then
explain the objection to those claims. You must discuss the specific examples provided in the paper topic
below.
- Provide the philosopher’s reply to
the objection. This involves using
textual evidence to infer how the philosopher would or should respond
to the objection.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the
philosopher’s reply. Give reasons for your own conclusion about whether
the philosopher succeeds or fails in fending off the objection.
Note
that your task is to evaluate a particular objection, not the philosopher’s
theory as a whole. It is possible that you might disagree with the
philosopher’s overall view, yet still conclude that the philosopher has an
effective reply to the specific objection under consideration.
Give textual evidence for any quotations and whenever you
attribute a specific view. Papers without
textual evidence will receive no higher than a D. Since this is not a
formal research paper, you may simply provide page numbers from the textbook in
parentheses. For example: “According to Aristotle, moral virtue is a product of
habit (p.509).” However, if you use sources other than the textbook (which is
not recommended), full bibliographical information must be provided.
Grading: The paper is worth a
total of 125 points. You will receive a letter grade that will be converted to
a numerical score. The main criteria for grading are:
Use of textual evidence
Accuracy of interpretation
Depth of analysis/defense of conclusion
Choose
one of the topics below:
- According to Mill, Against
Mill, it has been objected that the utilitarian Greatest Happiness
Principle justifies immoral means to achieve the goal of overall
happiness. For example, suppose an angry mob believes an innocent man has
committed a terrible crime, and will riot unless he is executed, killing
dozens and destroying a lot of property. According to the objector, it is
morally wrong to condemn an innocent man to death, but that is what the
Greatest Happiness Principle recommends in this situation. How would Mill
respond to this objection? Is his response effective? Why or why not?
(Note: You may be able to find some discussion of a
situation like this online, but your task is to use textual evidence from
Mill’s article to defend your conclusion. Determine what Mill in particular would
say, not a generic utilitarian.)
- According to Rachels, the welfare of the people is a culturally
neutral standard that can be used to evaluate the
customs of any society in an objective manner (p.472). Briefly explain how
Rachels defends this standard, and how he uses it
to criticize the custom of excision. Against Rachels,
it has been objected that the concept of welfare
is itself culturally relative. For example, the people who support the
custom of excision say that their custom promotes the welfare of the
people by removing a source of dangerous temptation that would otherwise
destabilize families and the community. According to the objector, Rachels is applying his own culture’s standard of
welfare when he condemns excision, not applying a culturally neutral
standard. How would Rachels respond to this objection?
Is his response effective? Why or why not?
Return
to the Introduction to
Philosophy page or my homepage.