University of Kansas, Fall 2004
Philosophy 160: Introduction to Ethics
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu

Writing assignment on normative ethics

The second part of our course is devoted to an examination of the following normative-ethical theories:

• ethical egoism
• utilitarianism
• Kantianism
• contractarianism
• the ethics of care

Your assignment is select two of these theories and to write a paper, not more than five pages long, contrasting them by subjecting each of them to the standard method for evaluating normative-ethical theories—that is, the method of testing theories’ implications for particular cases against the judgments of common-sense morality. To be more precise, your paper should include the following parts, in the following order:

1. an introductory paragraph indicating (a) which two theories you are going to contrast (see items 2 and 3 below) and (b) the kind of particular cases you will use in order to contrast them (see item 4 below), and (c) which theory you will claim is superior
2. a paragraph or two explaining the main idea of one of the two theories your paper is about
   • Here it is sufficient to explain the central principle of the first theory you’re talking about (the principle that says what the right thing to do is); you do not need to explain arguments for or against that principle. But in explaining the main principle of the theory, it would almost certainly be a good idea to provide an example or two. (So, don’t just end a paragraph on Kant’s moral theory by saying, “So, Kant’s theory says you must not make an exception of yourself.” Give an example of the kind of thing that injunction prohibits, in practice.)
3. a paragraph or two explaining the main idea of the other of the two theories your paper is about
   • Again, it is sufficient to explain the theory’s main principle, probably with an example or two; don’t worry about the arguments for and against it.
   • After this step, you should be somewhere on p. 2 of your paper, perhaps near the end of p. 2.
4. a paragraph explaining a particular case to focus on
   • Some examples of such cases are the trolley problem, the transplant case, and the case of the inquiring murderer.
   • Do not use any theory-case pair that can be found in the Rachels book, or any theory-case pair that was discussed in lecture. That is,
     • if one of the two theories you’re discussing is utilitarianism, you cannot use the trolley problem or the transplant case; otherwise, you can
     • if one of the two theories you’re discussing is Kant’s moral theory, you cannot use the case of the inquiring murderer; otherwise, you can
     • if one of the two theories you’re discussing is utilitarianism or contractarianism, you cannot use the issue of animal rights; otherwise, you can
   • Do not use any theory-case pair that is too close to any theory-case pair that can be found in our textbook, or any theory-case pair that was discussed in lecture. For example, Rachels discusses a case in which utilitarianism would imply that a person should give false testimony in order to get an innocent person convicted of a crime in order to prevent harmful rioting. An example of a theory-case pair too close to this one would be an examination, from the point of view of utilitarianism, of a case in which a person plants false evidence in order to get an innocent person convicted of a crime in order to prevent harmful rioting. As a general rule, if the theory-case pair you choose would remind someone knowledgeable about the material for this class of some case that has been discussed in the book or in class in connection with the theory in question, then it is not original enough.
   • You are encouraged to make up your own case, or introduce an issue that Rachels does not discuss and that has not been discussed in lecture. You might, for example, present some case that you have faced in your life or heard about in someone else’s life; or you might discuss some issue that has been in the news.
   • Be sure that you choose a case or issue about which the two theories you’re discussing provide contrary judgments—don’t pick a case or issue on which they agree.
   • Be sure that, when you explain your case or issue, you specify the act whose morality (or immorality) is to be considered. For example, if you are considering the issue of same-sex marriage, you need to specify whether the act you will be considering is (a) a citizen applying for a license to  marry someone of the same sex in a state where such marriage is currently illegal, (b) a government official deciding whether to grant or deny such an application in such a state, (c) a legislator voting in favor of a law allowing same-sex marriage in such a state, or some other particular act.
   • In specifying the act to be performed (or omitted), specify the circumstances of the act so that there is no uncertainty about any of the facts of the situation. For example, do not describe a situation in which the act might have good consequences or might have bad consequences, depending on things not specified in your description of the case. To apply theories to cases, the cases need to be definite (albeit, in most cases, hypothetical).
   • Don’t take up too much space describing something too elaborate—you should keep this to half a page or so, and when you’re done you should be around the top or middle of p. 3 of your paper.
5. a paragraph explaining what the first of the two theories you’re examining would say about this case or issue
   • In writing this paragraph you should be sure to take advantage of the explanation of the theory that you have provided in part 2 of your paper. In practice, this means making sure that you write part 2 in such a way as to set up what you will say in this part.
6. a paragraph explaining what the second of the two theories you’re examining would say about this case or issue
   • Analogously to what I said about part 5, you should be sure that this part of your paper builds naturally on what you said in part 3—which means writing part 3 with this part in mind.
   • After this step, you should be around the top or middle of p. 4 of your paper.
7. a paragraph indicating which theory would be judged better according to the standard method for evaluating normative-ethical theories
   • This will require you to say what, in your view, the opinion of common-sense morality is on the case or issue in question.
   • This should take you to the bottom of p. 4 or the top of p. 5 or so.
8. a paragraph indicating your opinion as to whether common-sense morality is right, or whether you have a contrary opinion
   • If you think that common-sense morality is right, give reasons in support of your (and common-sense morality’s) opinion.
   • If you think that common-sense morality is wrong and needs to be revised, give reasons in support of your opinion.
   • In this paragraph, you should be talking only about your judgment of common-sense morality’s verdict in this particular case, not about whether you think common-sense morality is right or wrong in general.
   • This should take you to the middle or end of p. 5 or so.

You would be well-advised to pick your two theories, and the case or issue you want to discuss, with the later tasks—7 and 8—in mind. Some combinations of theories and cases are easier to work with, and to comment on, than others.

No paragraph should be involved in more than one of the eight tasks listed above, though some tasks may require more than one paragraph to execute. Whenever a paragraph break is also the beginning of the execution of one of the tasks on this list, begin the next paragraph with the number of the task you’re beginning, like this. (That will help keep you on track and aid your teaching assistant in seeing what you’re up to at any point in your paper.)

1.    In this paper, I will contrast ethical egoism and utilitarianism by examining their differing responses to the issue of whether it is morally permissible to . . .

Your paper should have the same header information as specified for the Stevenson writing assignment. The other remarks on formatting, style, and content apply here as well, except where obviously inapplicable due the different nature of this assignment. The rules regarding academic misconduct are also the same as before: you are free to get all sorts of help on this assignment, as long as you (1) do all the writing yourself and (2) cite whatever help you get. This means, among other things, the following:

• When formulating your ideas, you are free to consult whatever sources you want to consult. You must, however, indicate all of the sources (books, journal articles, World Wide Web pages, television programs, other people, or whatever) that helped you to develop your ideas for the paper. You will not be penalized for borrowing others’ good ideas instead of thinking of your own; the ideas in your paper will be judged on their quality and how well you adapt them to the purpose of your paper, not on whether they are original with you.
• When writing your paper, do the writing yourself. Any language not your own—whether a sentence from a published source or just a clever phrase or metaphor suggested by another person in conversation—must be attributed to its source. Again, you will not be penalized for borrowing others’ good ways of expressing certain ideas, unless you borrow so much that the paper ceases to be legitimately yours. But as long as the paper is not flooded with quotations (i.e., as long as it’s plainly a piece of your writing), the writing will be judged on its quality (especially its clarity), and not on whether it’s all original with you.
• To cite a source of ideas or language you are borrowing, use a clear system of citations, such as footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical references like those recommended in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers or Kate L. Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. There is no particular format for citations to which it is necessary to conform exactly, as long as your citations are clear and exhibit a consistent form throughout your paper.

So those are some comments about what is expected on this assignment. Grading will be based on these considerations; each of the eight parts of your paper listed above will determine 10 percent of your grade, leaving 10 percent to be determined by whether your paper is written in a clear, straightforward, grammatically correct style and 10 percent to be determined by whether your paper is properly formatted.

Your paper will be due in class at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 28, and will determine 9 percent, or possibly 13 percent, of your overall course grade. (See the syllabus for a reminder of how assignments’ weights will be determined.)