Washington and Lee University, Fall 2001

Philosophy 101: Problems of Philosophy

101A: MWF, A hour (Newcomb 10B)

101C: MWF, C hour (Payne 3)

Ben Eggleston—EgglestonB@wlu.edu

office hours: M&F, 2–4, and T&Th, 9–11 (Newcomb 25)

 

Paper Assignment no. 2

 

The second part of our course is devoted to theories about how to make correct moral judgments, including the following theories:

You will have noticed (or will soon notice, as you read further) that the author of our book, James Rachels, offers quite a few objections to many of these theories, as well as offering explanations of them. Partly because of this, your assignment is either (1) to write a paper in which you explain the meaning of one of the theories listed above, explain one of Rachels’s objections to it, and offer the most effective response to that objection that you can think of, or (2) to write a paper in which you explain the meaning of one of the theories listed above, explain your own objection to it—taking care to ensure that your objection to it is different from any offered by Rachels—and then to offer the most effective argument on behalf of that objection that you can. Your paper should be about six pages long, double-spaced, and it will be due in class on Monday, October 29.

That’s the basic idea of the assignment; now here’s some advice for completing it:

  1. Clearly your paper is going to be a either a defense of one of the above theories or an attack on it. But this doesn’t mean that you should write about the theory that you like the best or the least. Rather, write about the theory against which you think Rachels makes the feeblest objection, or about the theory that you think it is easiest for you to object to in a way that doesn’t repeat an objection of Rachels’s.
  2. Be sure to pick just one of the two options above (either respond to an objection of Rachels’s or develop your own). If you’re talking about Rachels, it should be for the purpose of responding to him, and if you’re not talking about Rachels, you should be developing your own objection that doesn’t resemble one of Rachels’s.
  3. Think carefully about your use of space. Don’t spend too much space explaining the meaning of the theory; save plenty of space for developing your own argu­ment, whether it is a response to an objection of Rachels’s or an argument in support of your own objection.

To be more precise about what I’ve said so far, following (on the other side) is a detailed account of the criteria according to which I will grade.

 

 

requirements:

points possible:

points earned:

1.      Your paper accurately explains the main idea of one of the theories listed above:

10

 

2.      Your paper accurately explains one of Rachels’s objections to that theory or clearly explains your own, new, objection:

25

 

3.      Your paper offers an effective response to that objection (if it’s Rachels’s) or an effective argument for that objection (if it’s your own):

40

 

4.      Your paper is well organized and clearly written, with good spelling and grammar:

20

 

5.      Your paper is approximately six pages in length and is double-spaced, and this sheet (with this side up) is stapled or paper-clipped to the front of your paper:

5

 

6.      lateness penalty (if applicable):

(3 points off per unexcused day late, excluding weekends)

 

 

total score

100

 

 

Finally, a word about the honor system. As you know, all work turned in for credit at Washington and Lee is presumed to have been done without the giving or receiving of unacknowledged aid. This paper shall be no exception. But this does not mean that you cannot get help on this paper; on the contrary, you can get all sorts of help, but you must acknowledge it. That is, you must indicate—with footnotes, ideally—all of the ways in which you have gotten help, whether from other people (such as the staff of the Writing Center, which you are encouraged to take advantage of), or from books other than our textbook, or Web sites, and so on. Where possible, help that you have received should be noted in connection with the part of your paper to which it pertains. (For example, if someone helps you find a more persuasive way of expressing some thought of yours, then that should be noted with a footnote in that part of your paper.) But help whose effects extend throughout the paper (such as when someone reads your whole paper and gives you comments on many parts of it) can be noted as such in a single footnote at the beginning or end. In acknowledging aid, there is a balance to be struck between thoroughness and manageability; the key is to be as thorough as you need to be in order for the reader not to mistakenly attribute to you anything that you owe to someone or something else. So when in doubt, err on the side of thoroughness in acknowledging aid.