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. 2

Your assignment is to write a paper, about six pages long (double-spaced), answering one of the following questions. (Pick just one—do not try to address more than one.) Your paper will be due in class on Monday, March 11.

1. In §6, Tom Beauchamp formulates a definition of suicide and then discusses several objections that have been or might be offered against his definition. Explain Beauchamp’s definition, one of these objections (not more than one), and Beauchamp’s reply; and then evaluate Beauchamp’s reply. By ‘evaluate’, I mean that you should answer this question: Does Beauchamp’s reply succeed in defending his definition against the objection under consideration? In answering this question, you should offer reasoning that goes beyond, or is somehow independent of (i.e., not repetitive of), the reasoning that the objection and Beauchamp’s own reply consist of. This may be easier to do if you pick an objection against which, in your opinion, Beauchamp’s reply does not succeed in defending his definition, since you will probably have an easier time saying original things about Beauchamp’s reply if you are pointing out its shortcomings than if you are just praising it for being all right.
2. In §15, Beauchamp introduces the concept of paternalism. Explain how the concept of paternalism is relevant to the question of the moral permissibility of suicide intervention, and evaluate the success of paternalistic justifications of suicide intervention and prevention by discussing the merits of paternalistic justifications of other restrictions on individual liberty, such as prohibitions on drug use and/or prohibitions on prostitution. As in regard to question 1, you should be sure that your own reasoning is not merely repetitive of reasoning that can be found in the book (though it may well draw on other sources; i.e., you do not have to think it all up from scratch).
3. p. 117, question no. 8

As with your first paper, 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 three pages on the argumentative part of your paper.

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 Beauchamp’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. Your paper is not longer than approximately six pages 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. 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

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.