Paper Requirements, Grades, and Topics
You will write five papers.
Requirements:
Mechanical
All five papers must be typed and double-spaced. They should be printed in a standard, simple font, preferably a 12. (This syllabus is printed in Geneva 12.) A one-page limit applies to all papers. Footnotes constitute the single exception: A paper may run beyond one page to the extent of the length of one or more footnotes. In a one-page paper, any quotations should be few—one, maybe two—and brief. Conceivably, you might have more than two footnotes because you want to credit several sources for ideas. Use standard margins, about an inch all the way around.
Please observe the following principles.
1. Your name and a title for the paper should be typed or printed legibly on the reverse side, giving you a full page for text.
2. To the extent possible, organize your thoughts before beginning the first draft; refine the organization as you write revisions.
3. Early in the paper—say, the first or second sentence—state your thesis.
3. Write grammatically, precisely, concisely. Eliminate all words, facts, and ideas except those most important words, facts, and ideas that can fit—double-spaced—on one page. If your analysis suggest that the paper needs paragraphs—as it probably will—use paragraphs. Paragraphing requires additional space, and hence, further conciseness. If you do have a second page because of one or more footnotes, connect the two pages with a paper clip or staple.
4. Proofread for conciseness, clarity, grammar, and spelling.
5. Keep a copy of your paper.
Requirements
Ethical
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.
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, she, or they have published the material on paper or on the Internet or expressed the material orally. For moral purposes, the medium doesn’t matter. If you draw on material from the Internet, other than material from SCC’s Routledge Encyclopedia, 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. 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 act 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.
Grading
I will grade all five papers primarily according to (A) their reflection of an accurate understanding of the philosopher or problem in question; (B) their judicious focus; (C) their creative synthesis and analysis of ideas; (D) their careful, judicious reasoning in support of the position; and (E) their concise, clear, precise, grammatical expression. The one-page length limit places a premium on focus, judicious selection of support, and conciseness of expression. Whether with respect to the topic itself, reasons, or words, eliminate whatever is least important until the one-page criterion is satisfied.
Depending on how you approach paper #1, papers #2-#6 may well involve more argument. Consequently, criterion (D) may serve a lesser role in my reading of #1 than in my reading of the others. Similarly, criterion (A), understanding of a particular philosopher, may not apply at all to your first paper. I will do my best to evaluate #1 internally, that is, in terms of its own integrity and nature.
Topics
These Dates Are Out-Of-Date.
Topics I, II, and XXIII are required; the remaining two topics you will choose. Your first paper, topic I below, is a tiny philosophical memoir; your fifth paper, topic XXIII below, resembles topic I, more or less . These are required. A third required topic is the debate between moral relativism and moral absolutism, topic II. The list below includes the three that are required, and provides a partial bank from which you may select the remaining two. The list is partial because we may discuss some topics not here identified, and may not discuss some that the list includes. The first philosophical memoir is described more fully than the remaining topics.
Topic I is due on either Thursday, 2 February or Friday, 3 February (depending on whether you are in a TR section or a MWF section); topic II is due on either Thursday, 23 February or Friday, 24 February (depending on the section); and topic XXIII is due on the last day of class, either Thursday, 4 May or Friday, 5 May (again, depending on the section). The other two papers may be submitted any other Thursdays or Fridays of the semester. Probably you should not let these two remaining papers pile up toward the end of the semester. There are various reasons, one of which is that you should read my comments and think about them before writing the next paper.
I
A philosophical memoir identifies one of your personal philosophical interests, questions, inclinations, or beliefs, and briefly explains two or three aspects of your personal history whereby you have come to have that interest, question, inclination, or belief. Every human being has numerous philosophical tendencies that have been influenced by her or his past. I say “influenced by” rather than “determined by” because we also have rational capacities that enable us to evaluate the tendencies that our past has produced; we seem to differ from our past as well as resemble it. We seem able to think for ourselves, and thereby to change our views. We don’t just adopt the beliefs of our environment. Nevertheless, our earlier life must be counted as at least influential. Indeed, from one perspective, we might even want to say that our past is determinative, if we treat the past broadly, so as to include all events from biological conception to the present moment, including the aforementioned events of rational analysis.
Thus, however we conceive of the relationship of our past to our present, our past bears some strong relationship to our philosophical present. For example, how do one’s childhood experiences affect one’s current moral views?
This question is more complicated than it may at first seem. The question probably does not have a simple answer, such as, “My parents taught me to tell the truth, so now I tell the truth.” Granted, maybe a girl’s parents did say, at least in word, “Tell the truth.” Then what happened? Perhaps the girl found her parents, in fact, often lying. Perhaps she found them, indeed, speaking and living honestly, but suffering because of their integrity. Perhaps she found them living with a rigid honesty that sometimes seemed to cause more harm than good.
Seldom does our past bear on our present with simple linearity. How, for example, do the girl’s broader social experiences—as a child and then, later, as an adult—contribute to her moral views? How do her academic experiences contribute? Her academic experiences now that she is an adult and in college? How has a friend or lover influenced her moral outlook? All of these experiences will interact, and she will reflect on them more or less rationally … or will she? Has she been taught how to think rationally? Has she been taught to think rationally? Or, instead, has she been encouraged to acquiesce to authority? Has she been taught that faith and reason are distinct, and that a person should live by the former rather than the latter (or vice versa)? What role does religion serve in creating her moral views?
In the example of this woman, we have considered the relationship of our past to our moral tendencies. Morality, however, constitutes but one aspect of philosophy, and thus serves here merely to illustrate considerations that might come to mind in your working on your memoir. The quotations from philosophers (pp. 16-21) include—but range beyond—morality. They may stimulate your thinking about your own experience.
One point must be emphasized: Each person’s philosophical memoir 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; concise, clear and grammatical expression, all of which reflect careful, sustained thought. (See “Grading,” above.)
A one-page limit applies to all the papers. Do not waste ideas, reasons, words. For example, in the first paper, omit indicating where or when you were born, unless one of these facts bears crucially on the philosophical interest, question, or belief that now concerns you.
A memoir is not a chronology. It does not catalog facts. It expresses a bit of how you have come to be YOU. A philosophical memoir summarizes experiences as they have helped to create the current, philosophical, you. For an example written by me—yours will differ—see the SAMPLE MEMOIR that follows.
II
Which moral theory is true, absolutism or relativism? This paper requires that you understand James Rachels’s article in Abel. It may help if you also read Walter Stace’s essay on the topic, which can be found in many introductory philosophy textbooks. You must know what ‘absolutism’ and ‘relativism’ mean, as I have defined the terms in class; and the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘truth’, as I have defined the terms in class;
III
Attempt to resolve the divine command problem. Socrates identifies the problem in the Euthyphro. He treats it from a polytheistic perspective. You may prefer to treat it from a monotheistic perspective.
IV
Evaluate the position that Socrates takes in the Crito regarding obedience to the laws of the state. You might wish to focus on one of the following questions. May one morally violate laws that are unfair, for example, racist or sexist laws? May one violate laws that are fair but that have been unfairly applied by jurors or judges? Might one have an obligation to violate unfair laws if one has a reasonable expectation that the violation may contribute to revision of the laws? Should a person—especially an influential person such as Socrates—factor into his decision its effect on his own legacy? If you wish, you could give the topic a contemporary twist. Suppose that the Supreme Court determines that President Bush has broken U.S. law with his policy of monitoring certain telephone calls and emails without seeking a warrant. Could this policy be moral though illegal?
V
Aristotle ranks three kinds of human lives with respect to success and fulfillment. They are, in ascending order, the life of pleasure, the life of public service, and the life of philosophy or contemplation. Is he basically right? If you believe that he isn’t right, deal with his argument, which is based on his claim that human beings are distinguished from all other life by our rationality. If you believe that he is right, propose a possible criticism of his argument from human nature, and refute the criticism.
VI
Aristotle maintains that virtues consist of appropriately adjusted dispositions for emotional responses to the wide range of situations that individuals encounter, and that these adjustments are achieved through practice and the attendant habituation. Vices consist of inappropriate adjustments, brought about by inappropriate practice and inappropriate habituation. Is this conception of morality adequate? That is, if people tried to develop the virtues, as Aristotle proposes, would human behavior be as moral as can be reasonably expected?
VII
Attempt to resolve the problem of evil. If you seek to retain the divine perfections—omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence—beware of resolutions that implicitly contradict one of the perfections. For example, if evil enables God to know which people, by way of their choices, merit salvation, the need for God to have a way of knowing would seem to contradict God’s purported omniscience.
VIII
Evaluate St. Aquinas’ second proof for the existence of God, the proof from efficient causation. Either criticize the proof or defend it against a possible criticism. If you defend the proof, you will need to first state a possible criticism before you can defend it against that criticism. Do not merely restate the proof.
IX
Evaluate St. Aquinas’ fifth proof for the existence of God, the proof from teleology. Either criticize the proof or defend it against a possible criticism. If you defend the proof, you will need to first state a possible criticism before you can defend it against that criticism. Do not merely restate the proof.
X
If Hobbes’s view of the necessity of the sovereign is basically correct with respect to individual nations, is it basically correct with respect to the world? Do we need an international sovereign? Can we choose to submit to one, perhaps one that would be more democratic than the one envisioned by Hobbes, much as the government of the United States is more democratic than the one envisioned by Hobbes? Could we submit if new threats developed, e.g., terrorism became a much bigger problem than it is today? To get a distinctive perspective on world order, you may wish to read at least the Introduction and Chapter One of Michael Mandelbaum’s The Case for Goliath (Public Affairs, 2005).
XI
Which theory of human nature do you find more plausible, psychological egoism or psychological altruism? Why? You must know the difference between, on the one hand, psychological egoism and altruism, and, on the other hand, ethical egoism and altruism.
XII
Do material objects exist? This question differs from the question, Do objects exist? The answer to the latter is almost certainly, yes; and for Berkeley it was, yes, emphatically. Berkeley denies, rather, that matter exists. Either criticize his reasoning; or pose a possible criticism of it, and defend it against this criticism.
XIII
Hume claims that, although human beings must view the world in a way that presupposes that causation occurs, in fact, we have no good grounds for believing that it occurs because we have no sensory experience of causation. Is he right?
XIV
According to Hume, “[N]o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony[‘s] … falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” (An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , 1748, section X.) Evaluate his claim: Either criticize it, or pose a possible criticism and defend it against that criticism.
XV
Evaluate Kant’s categorical imperative. You should focus on just one of its formulations, preferably the one that we examined in class. Either criticize the imperative, or pose a possible criticism and defend it against that criticism. You may wish to focus on one of the questions that we raised in class: Do Kant’s moral evaluations of acts really avoid relying on consequences? Do the universalizations of the maxims that he considers really result in contradictions?
XVI
Evaluate Mill’s claim that we should always seek to maximize pleasure. You may wish to pose a possible counter-example; then either argue that the example does counter utilitarianism or that it does not. A true counter-example must satisfy two criteria: 1) The act or practice must maximize pleasure; and 2) it must evoke moral disapproval in almost all reasonable people.
XVII
Evaluate some aspect of Nietzsche’s philosophical anthropology or his ethic. For example, is human life only a will to power? Does traditional monotheism discourage the pursuit of excellence? Does a slave morality stifle the life of courageous creativity? If you wish to refute Nietzsche, it will not do merely to assert the contrary: One must first acknowledge that a case for Nietzsche’s position can be made, credibly. It is that credible position that must be countered.
XVIII
Evaluate James’ use of optimism in his argument for indeterminism. You may wish to focus on one or the other of two (related) questions. First, Is optimism really good? Is pessimism better? Or is neutral open-mindedness better than either extreme? Second, assuming that optimism is better than either extreme, is it so good that we should answer difficult questions about the nature of realty optimistically? Or would it be better to simply acknowledge that we don’t know? If you choose to address this second question, you may apply your answer—as James does—to whether we have free will, or to some other tough problem.
XIX
Walter Stace advocates soft determinism. Is he right? To address this question, one must understand the difference between ‘determinism’, ‘hard determinism’, and ‘soft determinism’, as I defined these expressions in class.
XX
Jean-Paul Sartre claims both that existence precedes essence and that a person must assume moral responsibility for her actions. A critic might say that Sartre is inconsistent: If human beings have no essence that they do not create, and if there are, as Sartre says, no reasons to justify our actions, can there be a principle that requires that we assume moral responsibility for our actions? Would the critic be right?
XXI
Under what circumstances, if any, should human beings torture other human beings? Attempt to answer this question, relying on the ethical theory of either Kant or Mill. You should narrow the question to a particular context, e.g., the war in Iraq. At the outset of the paper, indicate whether your position is Kantian or Millian. Argue for your position with an awareness of the facts and views expressed in the Newsweek articles of 21 November 2005, and of those expressed in the CNN exchange between Ken Roth and Alan Dershovitz.
XXII
What have you learned through the United States’ war in Iraq? You should focus on a specific question. For example, what have you learned about the American presidency or the American form of government? What have you learned about human nature in general or your nature in particular? What have you learned about knowledge? What have you learned about knowledge and its relation to action? What have you learned about the relationship between action and inaction? What have you learned about the concept of inaction: Is inaction a myth, all claimed “inactions” only particular kinds of actions? You may want to address a different question. In any case focus.
XXIII
Write your current philosophical memoir or current view of a philosophical issue. This paper may be less personal than your first—less memoir, more argument—or it could be more personal. You are sixteen weeks older than you were when you wrote your initial memoir. You have been taking classes, working, reading, talking with friends, professors, fellow students. What has happened? Where are you going philosophically? Perhaps you want to re-examine what concerned you in the first memoir. Your earlier view on some question may have changed substantially. If it has not changed much, what competing view have you encountered; rejected, thereby basically retaining your original view; and why have you rejected the competing view? (If a particular view hasn’t changed during the semester, and you have not encountered a competing view, presumably you could only reiterate what you have said before. Mere reiteration of an old position is hardly worth doing.) Perhaps you do not wish to re-examine a question you raised at the beginning of the semester because you now believe some other question is more important. Which question? Why is it more important? Are you inclined toward some answer? Focus.