Washington and Lee University, Winter 2002

Philosophy 395: Advanced Seminar/

University Scholars 201A: Humanities Seminar

Thursdays, GHI (Newcomb 8)

Ben Eggleston—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 six pages long (double-spaced), answering one of the following questions. (Pick just one—do not try to address more than one.)

  1. In chapter 5, and especially in section 5.2, Hausman and McPherson claim that not all behavior can be reduced to, or explained in terms of, self-interest. Critically evaluate this claim, by describing and assessing the soundness of Hausman and McPherson’s argument(s) for it.
  2. In arguing (as he does in “Rational Fools”) that not all commitment-based choice can be reduced to self-interest (and/or preference satisfaction), Sen is implicitly claiming that it does not make sense to construe self-interest, or preference satisfaction, so broadly that it includes all cases of commitment-based choice. Is he right? Test his thesis by (1) describing a case that Sen does claim or would claim is an undeniable case of counter-preferential commitment-based choice, (2) making as strong a case as you can for the reduction of it to self-interest (i.e., for the characterizing of it as not counter-preferential), and (3) assessing the success of this attempt (your attempt to characterize it as not counter-preferential). Does the reduction to self-interest succeed, or does the case constitute an example of counter-preferential choice?
  3. In chapter 6, and especially in section 6.3, Hausman and McPherson object to the preference-satisfaction theory of welfare. Arneson, in contrast, defends this theory (or a version of it). Pick a specific aspect of this issue on which Hausman and McPherson (on one hand) and Arneson (on the other hand) disagree, describe their respective positions, and assess the relative strengths of their positions.

So that’s the assignment; now here’s a word of advice for completing it. Your essay will have both an explanatory part, in which you describe some issue, and an argumentative part, in which you argue for your own view or assess the quality of an author’s reasons (or some authors’ reasons). 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.

For this paper there are two due dates: (1) Saturday, February 9, or Sunday, February 10, and (2) Sunday, February 17. On February 9 or 10, 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 a week in which to improve your paper in light of your peers’ comments, and by noon on February 17, you will turn in to me (or my office or mailbox) 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 good reasons for the position you defend:

55

 

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

20

 

4.      For February 17 (not February 9 or 10): your paper is approximately six 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 17: 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.