Instructions for First Major Paper
PHIL 320 - Spring 2010

For questions contact Dr. Jan Garrett

Latest revision: February 19, 2010

Sample Paper

Due Date (320-001): Monday, March 1
Due Date (320-002): Friday, March 5

Length: about 1350 words (roughly 4.5 pages double spaced, with one-inch margins, using 10-12 point type in a common font, e.g., Times Roman).

Possible Points Attainable on This Paper: 35 (out of 200 for the semester)

Citations, drawings, notes and/or bibliographical data may be appropriate or even necessary, but they do not contribute toward the length total. You will need a total of 3300 words on the two major papers and the short paper.

Please give me a word-count for your paper not including the excluded material.

The paper should be typed or produced with a word-processor (preferably with spelling checker). Let me concentrate on giving you feedback on matters other than spelling!

General Instructions

I. Read and understand Dept of English Policy and FAQ's on Plagiarism.

II. Understand the meaning of the concepts of "position," "issue" and "argument."

III. Select a topic from the following list. (You may first want to look at the chapter introductions in chapters 4, 7, 8, and 9 if you have not already done so.)

A. Legal opinions (361-370), Vatican Declaration (341ff.), Michael Ruse article (353ff.) in chapter 7.
Focusing on the moral content of the legal opinions and the Vatican Declaration regarding same-sex marriage along with Ruse's article on Homosexuality, present the arguments for and against the alleged civil right to engage in same-sex marriage. When discussing the Vatican Declaration, focus on the non-religious arguments that it contains (inasmuch as strictly religious arguments have no force in the public domain).
B. Sara Ruddick on Better Sex and The Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics, in Chapter 7.
Familiarize yourself with both, but concentrate on understanding and explaining Ruddick's fairly subtle analysis. The paper should include a section addressing with discussion question 2 (p. 353). When discussing the Vatican Declaration, focus on the non-religious arguments that it contains (inasmuch as strictly religious arguments have no force in the public domain).
C. Groenhaut (main article) and Goldberg in chapter 8
Groenhaut herself sets out the debate between liberal feminism (which she favors), on one side, and gender essentialists (and some who, like MacKinnon, seem to reason as gender essentialists although technically they are not) and sociobiologists on the other. Goldberg presents a sociobiological perspective. Gender essentialism is discussed in Groenhaut and also in the introduction to the chapter. You may focus on Groenhout's dispute with MacKinnon if you wish.
D. Hirschman and Young in Chapter 8. Do women have a general moral obligation to be active in the workforce? (Goldberg's article may also provide a perspective contrary to Hirschman's.)

E. MacKinnon on Pornography (main article) and Strossen or Mill in chapter 9.

Focus on the MacKinnon article. The issue to be discussed is whether her case for regulation (or censorship, as some of her critics think) of pornography is persuasive. Riane Eisler has some important things to say about MacKinnon's work.
F. Lawrence (or Fish) and Strossen on Hate Speech in chapter 9.
Lawrence favors some restrictions on expressions of prejudice, especially on university campuses, while Strossen favors protecting freedom of expression, even when the expressions are motivated by prejudice.

G. Hardwig or Battin, and Gay-Williams or Wolf in chapter 4.

Battin presents the case for sometimes permitting euthanasia, especially voluntary active euthanasia. Hardwig argues that one might even have a duty to die. Gay-Williams opposes euthanasia but some of his reasoning might be used against Hardwig's thesis. Wolf opposes physician assisted suicide, but some of her arguments—carefully selected and perhaps somewhat modified—might also be targeted against voluntary active euthanasia and Hardwig's claim that there is sometimes a duty to die. If you write on any of these topics, be sure to consult the first two items under End of Life Issues here.

Because I want to make sure that the class's efforts are distributed over all or most of these topics, you should check with me to ensure that the topic you wish to choose has not been "over-subscribed." I am limiting the number of students who may write on a particular topic to 10.

Please avoid topics that fall under the same chapter as the topic on which you wrote your short paper, for instance, students who wrote their short paper on sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, gay parenting, etc. should not choose topics A or B; students who wrote their short paper on motherhood and the workplace should avoid D; students who wrote on euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should avoid G.

IV.Read the introduction to the chapter in which your articles occur and the articles you have chosen. (See also On Reading Ethics Articles.)

V. In composing your paper please take the following approach:

1. What information and concepts must be understood before trying to understand the arguments on the various sides of the debate? [Here is a quickly drawn-up list of major concepts of several of the articles that are options for discussion in the first major paper. Note: "Concepts" only partly overlap with the important logical steps in an argument.]

2. Concentrate on answering these questions for one side of the debate: What is (are) the main conclusion(s) for that side of the debate? How does its advocate back up his or her conclusions? (That is, what starting points--factual claims, moral principles--does the advocate present without further defense? What intermediate conclusions does the author reach on the way to support the main conclusion?) Show how the argument flows in a coherent manner toward the conclusion.

3. Concentrate on answer the same sorts of questions for the other side of the debate?

4. What criticisms would the advocate of the first side make of the position of his opponent (if these have not already been addressed)? What criticisms would the advocate of the other side make of the position of her opponent (if these have not already been addressed)?

5. Space permitting, how would the opposite sides respond to the criticisms (assuming the response would not merely repeat what has already been said)?

6. What practical consequences would follow if people generally accepted the positions of the various sides (if they have not already been stated or are not obvious).

7. If you can think of a third position superior to the position taken by the two sides in the debates, state that position and explain why it is superior to the first two.

8. Optional (but I'd really like to see it). Relate Eisler's distinction between Partnership and Dominator models (or Lakoff's Strict Father and Nurturant Parent family models) to the positions in the debate. This is not always easy to do, since occasionally the Dominator or Strict Father approach will adopt Partnership vocabulary but use it so that it promotes Dominator values; occasionally the theorist will use Partnership approaches to one group, or in relation to one set of issues (say, relations between humans), but Dominator approaches to another (say, relations between humans and the earth). Limit these reflections to 1/3 of the paper.

9. Also optional but it could enhance your paper. Relate theories from Chapter 1 (Utilitarianism, Libertarianism/Locke, Care Theory, etc.) to the positions in the debate. Limit such reflections to 1/3 of the paper.

VI. You should be familiar with the Universal Intellectual Standards for academic work. They will be among the criteria I will bear in mind in evaluating this paper.

VII. See Guidelines on Quotation and Documentation of Sources.

VIII. If you have any questions about this assignment, ask for clarification as soon as possible.