First Paper

Assignment #1 examines a moral problem that you yourself have been thinking about. Assignments #2 and #3 focus on one of the philosophers or moral problems that we will have been discussing as the semester proceeds. For the second and third papers, you will choose a topic from among several alternatives that I present. These alternatives will be explained in the next two assignments, which I will distribute as the respective due dates approach.

Here, however, we focus on assignment #1. For this assignment, you choose the problem from your own list of problems. The paper, thus, touches on a specific aspect of your moral biography. Identify a moral problem that you are confronting, and explain why it is a problem, that is, why you find it difficult to resolve. The point of the paper is not to resolve the problem, but to show why it is difficult to resolve. If you wish, you may point in the direction of a resolution, suggest how you think it should be resolved. Be sure, however, not to pick a bogus problem: If the solution comes easily, if you're confident of the solution as you begin to work on the assignment, you haven't picked much of a problem. (To be precise, you haven't picked much of a problem for you at this phase in your life. A real problem now may not be much of a problem later in life. Later, you may look back and see clearly what now you don't see clearly. Similarly, an issue that now seems to have an easy answer may become more complex for you in a few years. I'm asking you to examine a moral issue that is real for you now.)

If you wish—this suggestion is optional only—you may relate the problem to one of the readings that we will have been discussing. Maybe an idea presented by one of the authors begins to shed some light on the problem; maybe an idea presented by one of the authors seems designed to shed light on this kind of problem, and you find that it fails to do so. Other connections are possible. You can make as much or as little of any such connections as you wish. Again, this aspect of the assignment is optional. I would, however, be surprised if there is not a connection to be developed if you can just see it; and development of a connection should improve the paper.

If you think that you haven't been thinking about a moral problem, the first few class sessions should relieve you of that concern. In the meantime, however, let the table of contents of our text jog your thoughts; or dip around in the Routledge Online Encyclopedia; or just read a good newspaper or news magazine. We can also produce some examples in class.

One point must be emphasized: Each person's moral autobiography will differ from every other person's. There is no single right way to do this assignment. I do ask of you, however, coherence and organization, logical consistency, clear and grammatical expression, all of which reflect careful, sustained thought.

Moreover, the paper should have its own kind of thesis statement, that is, an autobiographical thesis statement. For example, "My religious background has led me to doubt the concept of sin." "Several experiences have caused me to think that mercy-killing is a complicated issue." "I was raised to believe in sexual fidelity, but as I have matured, I have become less certain." "Discussions with my roommates, and reading materials they have given me, make me wonder whether it is moral to eat meat."(See "Grading," below.)

Requirements for All Three Papers

Each paper should be typed and double-spaced. It must be no more than three pages. Use a standard size, preferably 12. Use a font that is simple and easy to read, such as Geneva in black— no fancy shapes or colors. (This syllabus is typed in Geneva #12.) Use standard margins, about an inch all the way around.

The principle of intellectual honesty, the mechanical requirements, and the criteria for grading, all explained below, apply also to the remaining two assignments. The "practical proposal" also has value for all of these papers, as well as for most papers that you write for other courses.

Intellectual Honesty

When using the exact language of another person, quote the person, accurately citing the source, including page number. Quoting, by definition, is accurate: For example, if the author uses a comma, use a comma; if she doesn't, don't. You must also cite your source when you use another person's distinctive idea, even if not his exact words. Remember: Include the page number or numbers.

If you use material from the Internet, please note: The accessibility of another person's original material on the Internet does not constitute permission that you may use that material without attribution. You must cite the author or authors, whether he or she or they have published the material on paper or on the Internet or expressed the material orally. Morally, the medium doesn't matter. If you draw on material from the Internet, you must submit, appended to your paper, a printed version of either the complete text from which you have drawn or, if the text is unduly long, a substantial portion of the relevant material that includes the material from which you have drawn. (This requirement of appending does not apply to use of the Routledge Encyclopedia.) The author and address must be fully and accurately indicated.

The principle of intellectual honesty requires giving due credit to others. Violation of this principle constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Any student who submits work as his or her own that is not his or her own will receive a failing grade for the course or other appropriate reprimand or penalty. The method of citation is relatively unimportant; the practice of appropriate citation is extremely important. If you have questions about this principle, ask for clarification. There is nothing wrong with asking; there may be something seriously wrong with not asking if you do not understand.

Mechanical Requirements

You do not need to use a title page, but may if you wish. In the middle of the title page (if you use a title page), or at the top of the first page (if you do not use a title page), give your name; my name; name of this course; time and days of the week that our course meets; date of actual submission, not just scheduled submission if there is a difference (Feel free to pen or pencil in the date of actual submission.); a telephone number where I can reach you (The telephone number is confidential, and I would only call in unusual circumstances.); and a title that clearly indicates the topic that you are addressing (This last point is not so important for the first paper, since there is only one topic.)
Organize your thoughts. Write grammatically, precisely, concisely.
Within the first paragraph, clearly express your thesis, your single, central point, which your paper seeks to establish. One declarative sentence should express that point. Some people, to assure that there is no confusion, underline that sentence. You may do so, if you wish; but if the thesis sentence is and its surrounding paragraph are written well, the device of underlining is unnecessary.
Proofread for grammar, clarity, conciseness, and spelling.
Place your last name at the top of all pages.
Connect the pages with a paper clip or staple. Do not merely fold the corner of the pages, since this procedure invites loss of a page and appears sloppy. A paperclip by itself, or a staple by itself, is preferable to folders composed of plastic, paper, or other materials, since such folders are clumsy to handle and lack a pleasing simplicity and forthrightness. (See the "practical proposal" below.)
Keep a copy of your essay, on paper, disc, USB, or whatever works for you. Backup anything important.

Grading

Basically, I will grade all three of the papers primarily according to (A) an accurate understanding of the philosopher or problem in question; (B) creative synthesis and analysis of ideas; (C) careful reasoning in support of your position; and (D) clear, precise, grammatical expression. A clear thesis sentence enhances overall clarity. Criterion (A) may not apply directly to your first paper, since you probably will not be focusing on a particular philosopher. I will do my best to evaluate #1 internally, that is, in terms of its own integrity and nature.

Practical Proposal