Washington and Lee University, Winter 2002

Philosophy 101: Problems of Philosophy

MWF, B hour (Newcomb 10B)

Ben Eggleston—http://home.wlu.edu/~EgglestonB

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

Paper Assignment no. 1

Your assignment is to write a paper, about five pages long (double-spaced), answering one of the following questions. (Pick just one—do not try to address more than one.)

1. In §13, James Rachels argues that the utilitarian version of the argument from mercy, in favor of euthanasia, is flawed, and that the best-interests argument is a more persuasive version of the argument from mercy. What are Rachels’s reasons for preferring the best-interests argument to the utilitarian argument, and are these reasons good ones?
2. In §16, Rachels criticizes three religious arguments against euthanasia. Ignore the first one and focus on either the second one or the third one. What are Rachels’s reasons for rejecting this argument (whichever one you’ve chosen to focus one), and are these reasons good ones?
3. In §20, Rachels distinguishes the “logical” version of the slippery-slope argument from the “psychological” version. What is the difference between these two versions of the slippery-slope argument? Is Rachels right that neither of them succeeds in establishing that euthanasia should be illegal?
4. p. 67, question no. 2
5. p. 67, question no. 3
6. p. 67, question no. 5

So that’s the assignment; now here’s some advice for completing it:

1. Questions 1, 2, and 3 ask you not only to explain Rachels’s argument on some issue, but also to assess the quality of his reasons. Questions 4, 5, and 6, while not explicitly requiring you to explain anything, ask for your judgment on some moral question, and you should also provide reasons in support of your judgment. So regardless of which question you answer, your paper will have not only an explanatory or descriptive part (in which you explain or describe some issue), but also an argumentative part, in which you argue for a certain judgment in regard to Rachels’s reasons or a certain judgment in regard to some moral issue.
2. Think carefully about your use of space. Don’t spend too much space explaining whatever you may need to explain, or else you won’t have enough space in which to develop the argumentative part of your paper sufficiently. To avoid spending too much space on the explanatory part of your paper, you might want to write that extremely briefly at first, then write the argumentative part of your paper, and then go back and fill in some of the earlier part. Of course, how much space is sufficient for developing the argumentative part of your paper will depend on your own ideas and writing style, but a fairly safe rule of thumb to follow would be to spend no more than three pages on the explanatory part of your paper, and at least two pages on the argumentative part of your paper.

For this paper there are two due dates: Wednesday, February 6, and Monday, February 11. On February 6, you are to bring to class two copies of a rough draft of your paper. Then you and two of your peers will form a small group and spend the class period reading each others’ papers and offering comments—hopefully some combination of praise and constructive criticism. You will not be graded on the quality of the rough draft you bring to class, because I will not read it: only your peers will. Then you will have five days in which to improve your paper in light of your peers’ comments, and on February 11 you will turn in to me one copy of the revised version of your paper. This is what I will read and grade.

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

requirements:	points possible:	points earned:
1. Your paper accurately explains the issue(s) relevant to the question you choose to answer:	20
2. Your paper provides reasons for your assessment of Rachels’s reasons, or for your own position on the issue(s) in question:	55
3. Your paper is well organized and clearly written, with good spelling and grammar:	20
4. For February 11 (not February 6): your paper is approximately five pages in length and is double-spaced, this sheet (with this side up) is stapled or paper-clipped to the front of your paper, and your name and the question you are answering are provided below:	5
5. For February 11 (not February 6): lateness penalty (if applicable): (3 points off per unexcused day late, excluding weekends)
total score	100

Your name: ______________________________ The question you’re answering: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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.