Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer:

Is it ever morally appropriate for human beings to conduct scientific, industrial, or medical experiments on live animals?

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

Socrates says, in the Apology (at 38a), that “the unexamined life is not worth living for men (anthropoi, human beings, all human persons).  (a)  What does he mean by this statement and why does he assert it?  (b)  Suppose we accept it as true; what are the implications of its being true?  (c) What objections might we raise against it?  (d) How might Socrates reply to such objections?



Guidelines for Philosophy Papers

Mechanics
1.  Paper should be 5 pages in length, double-spaced, using a 12-point Times Roman font and one-inch margins all around.  You should not provide a separate title page, but you should include a title at the top of the first page of your paper.  Put your name in the upper right- or left-hand corner of the first page.  Pages of the text should be numbered throughout (either top center – except for first page of course – or top right or bottom center).  Failure to number pages is a discourtesy to your reader. It establishes you as a sloppy writer and an indifferent scholar.

2.  Citations should be used where appropriate to avoid plagiarism.  This includes all direct quotations from a text and also close paraphrases.  Citations may be in the form of footnotes, endnotes or parenthetical citations in the body of the text, in the MLA style.  Either the MLA Style Sheet or Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (the latter based on The Chicago Manual of Style, which may be used instead) should be followed when making citations.  Follow one or the other of these citations styles.  I hate sloppy or imprecise ways of citing sources.  For example, titles of books are always italicized.  Always.  Do not fail to do this.

See also #7, below.

Substance of Paper
3.    The preferred kind of paper is argumentative.  That is to say, it should have a point, or set of points, it is concerned to argue.  Such points should be controversial, not in the sense of being sensational but in the sense that what you say could be reasonably contested by another reader of the same text.  You must develop an interpretation of the material that you believe you can defend, for which there is evidence in the text or texts with which you are working and which is sufficiently weighty and serious to be worth arguing.  You should show that you are aware that one might look at the material in another way, that one can make different points than you are making, but that, even so, you believe your view is sound and worth considering.  What you regard as good evidence for this should, of course, be the backbone of your paper.

4.    Thus, your paper should have a well-developed and clearly formulated thesis statement in the first paragraph.  The easiest way to do this is to introduce your thesis statement with a phrase such as: “In this paper, I intend to argue that ________________________” or “In what follows, I intend to show that __________________.”  Using the first person is perfectly fine, regardless of what others have taught you; first person is widely used in philosophy and many other disciplines in the humanities and with good reason:  it makes things clear.

5.    Your paper can take the form either of an argumentative paper (preferred) or of a clarifying paper (conceptual elucidation).
!    Argumentative Paper = one in which you contend for one view or claim (or set of views or claims) over another (or several other competing views/claims), when it is possible to defend both or all of them with reasons and evidence.  E.g.:

In Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Richard Rorty claims that the self is thoroughly contingent, that it possesses no essential, or stable, unvarying nature.  For this claim he presents two [or three or four] principal arguments, namely (1), (2), and (3) [i.e, here you would give the arguments Rorty uses; you will probably have to paraphrase in your own words his arguments, since they would likely be too lengthy and cumbersome to quote].  I intend to contest this claim by showing that all three [or two, or one] of his arguments fail on their own merit  More specifically, I will argue that even on Rorty’s contingency thesis the self remains a center of deliberation and choice over time and thus has a foundation that lies underneath any contingency it displays.  This undermines Rorty’s strong contingency claim and leaves him with a much weaker claim to contingency.


!    Clarifying Paper = one in which you attempt to spell out the meaning of a central term or terms that one of our philosophers has used.  E.g.:

Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, frequently makes use of the concept of the “will to power.”  Notwithstanding his repeated invoking of this notion in order to say what he thinks must follow upon the experience of the “death of God,” it is not immediately clear precisely what the phrase means.  Does it mean that one can and should do just whatever one wants: rape, murder, pillage, tell the truth, lie, commit suicide?  And if it does, is Nietzsche then saying anything significant and philosophically interesting?  Wouldn’t he be saying simply that people are free to do arbitrarily whatever they want?  In this paper, I intend to show that this is not what Nietzsche means by “the will to power,” that what he in fact means is connected to his belief that the will to power is the will to life.  Thus, “will to power” for Nietzsche is all the life activities of an organism just expressing themselves in whatever way is indicative of that kind of organism, including man.  But if this is the case, I will go on to show that the will to power is not an arbitrary power but is connected to the kind of being man is essentially .

(In both examples, above, the underlined sentences are the thesis statement component of the opening paragraph.)

!    Note that a Clarifying Paper is a kind of argumentative exercise.  After all, in it you must make a case for understanding a concept, or several concepts, in the way you think it (or they) must be understood – and that is tantamount to arguing a case.  Thus, a Clarifying Paper is not a paper devoid of argumentation; it is one particular kind of argumentative paper.

6.    Try to avoid what I call merely “retelling the story,” in which you simply repeat what an author has said.  If you find yourself writing several pages in which all you do is say, in effect, “first Plato says this, and then Plato says that, and then Plato says this other thing,” that is an indication that you are probably merely retelling the story.  I want to know what you think Plato, e.g., means, where he is right or insightful and where he goes wrong, etc.  You need to make space in the paper – a considerable amount of space – for you: for your interpretation, criticism, assessment, thoughts, observations.  This should be a philosophical paper, not a book report.

7.    I do not require you to have references to secondary literature (outside sources).  It might be helpful, however, if you take a look at some secondary interpretations: you might find yourself disagreeing with that writer’s interpretation of Plato or Machiavelli or Augustine, and then you would be off and running.  I can make some suggestions as to what other scholars might be helpful, but an afternoon spent in the library would surely result in your discovering some of these on your own.  If you refer to these outside scholarly interpretations in your paper, you must give full credit in the form of a footnote or endnote.  If you are unsure how to do this, consult the formats in either the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, ed. Joseph Gibaldi, 4th ed. (or later editions): e.g., look at sec. 4.2, p. 104 ff. “MLA Style”; or Kate L. Turabian, Student’s Guide for Writing College Papers.

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

The argument form Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is so common as to be essentially unrecognized in everyday
life. When we examine the form of the argument carefully, we can see ways to evaluate these arguments that make our
reasoning stronger. Our explanations can be clearer and more persuasive, and crafting good explanations is an essential
part of critical reasoning.
Read the target article and the Supplemental Note on IBE in Blackboard and then write a three-page essay that does the
following.
1. Identifies the phenomenon to be explained
2. Identifies the candidate explanations
3. Presents the IBE in standard form
4. Explains how the “winning” explanation was chosen
5. Evaluates the authors’ reasoning about that explanation
Running a little bit short is fine, but by no more than half a page. Do not go over three pages. I will stop reading at three
pages, and if you have something to say after that, I won’t see it. (If you think that you absolutely must go over three
pages, check with me first so that we can go over what you are trying to say. Such requests will not necessarily be

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

Explain Peter Singer’s ethical views concerning why non-human animals are entitled to moral consideration.  Discuss why you either agree or disagree.

In “The Ethics of Animal Research,” author David DeGrazia enumerates points of agreement and disagreement between the biomedical and the animal protection communities concerning animal research.  Explain why you either agree or disagree with one or more of the ten points of agreement he discusses on pp. 558-61--and/or, discuss your views on one or more of the four "probable continuing points of difference" he discusses on pp. 562-63.

Explain Mylan Engel's argument against animal experimentation presented in “The Commonsense Case Against Animal Experimentation”.  Discuss why you either agree or disagree.

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

According to Albert Camus, there is only one truly serious philosophical problem. What is this problem?  Explain why you either agree or disagree with him about the importance of this problem.

Friedrich Nietzsche believes that exploitation should not be condemned as an evil.  Rather, he views it as a "basic organic function," a necessary consequence of the will to power.  Nietzsche's ethical perspective is "beyond good and evil" because he thinks it is morally correct to express the will to power without restraint.  Explain why he believes this and why you either agree or disagree with him.

Several existentialist philosophers advocate living life authentically.  What is your own definition of an authentic life?  How difficult is it to live up to the ideal of authenticity?

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

  
In 1,000 words, compare the moral anthropology of Plato and Aristotle.

How does each describe (and divide up) the human soul?
How does that view of the soul fit into their basic philosophical view of the world?
What does each think it means to live well, function fully, and/or flourish?
How do reason and the virtues fit into all of this?
What is the goal of ethics for each person?
Organize your paper into five paragraphs, each with one purpose:

an introduction paragraph (written last so that you can introduce and summarize what you say in the paper)
one paragraph summarizing Plato's response to the questions above
one paragraph summarizing Aristotle's response to the questions above
one paragraph comparing/contrasting the two thinkers
a conclusion reflecting on this from your perspective (ask: What do I believe? How do I respond?)
Include as little biographical detail on the thinkers as possible; I already know who they are.

This is not a research paper. You should be able to finish your work with reference to the handouts and assigned readings. If you do make use of other sources in your work, please give credit where it is due.

How do there different viewpoints address one of the following: what do I believe, what are my politics, or how do I respond.

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer

Paper Instructions:

Why do you think people are tempted to use the straw man fallacy in disagreements on moral issues? How do you feel when someone uses this fallacy against you? To demonstrate your understanding and to teach the idea to the rest of the class, provide a relevant real-life example of the logical mistake. (You MAY use an outside source to help you present your example; be sure to summarize or paraphrase, cite, and use announcing verbs.) Choose carefully—consider whether your example does a good job of illustrating a Straw Man. Compare it to similar fallacies, and show why your example is a Straw Man rather than another fallacy like an Appeal to the Person. The discussion of your example should be detailed so that readers can evaluate the fallacy. Argue the case for why your example is an example of Straw Man.

Topic and Questions We Can Help You To Answer
Paper Instructions:

Write a 3-4 page (12 pt font, double-spaced) paper on  one of the following two topics.
Explain in your own words Rachels description of the value of privacy. Provide your own strong argument either in support of, or opposing, Rachels account of the value of privacy.


Explain, in your own words, Hettinger’s argument’s against the Lockean justification of intellectual property. Adam Moore, in his article entitled "Intellectual Property", offers a reply to this criticism. (Link). Explain Moore’s arguments in defense of the Lockean justification of intellectual property. Who do you think is right and why? (Note: Both articles discuss other justifications for intellectual property, but I want you to discuss only the Lockean justification.)

Topic and Questions We Can Help You To Answer
Paper Instructions:

How can Justice for All be made possible in America

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer:

Paper Instructions:

https://beta.prx.org/stories/85361 Use specific examples from the podcast, As Black as We Wish to Be, as evidence to support your answers to the following review questions. Indicate the time your evidence is heard by citing the time (2:08) in your answers. ESSAY QUESTION: Many anthropologists and social scientists claim that race is constructed culturally rather than biologically. How well do the lived experiences of the residents of East Jackson support this claim? In your essay answer you must describe the special hierarchy of social stratification in Pike County, Ohio. What material evidence proves that some groups have more access to prestige, power & wealth than others? Which social groups and why? Give specific examples of the wealth, power & prestige involved. For example: Is their experience of social stratification explicitly racist? If so, how? What′s ″class″ got to do with it? How is one′s social identity successfully ascribed to the residents in East Jackson? By whom and for whom are the identities ascribed? Which social identities are achieved in East Jackson? How successfully are they achieved? By whom and for whom? What normally tacit cultural knowledge about ″race″ in the US does the lived experience of all the residents of Pike County make explicit?

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer:

Paper Instructions:

The new generations are digital natives, meaning they have grown up around social media, but does social media promote a truly social lifestyle? You will need to examine specific, academic research related to social media′s effect on the social well-being

Topics and Questions We Can Help You To Answer:

Paper Instructions:

Defend why utilitarianism is the best approach of shaping a just society where human beings are motivated and urged to do the right thing.