If you have very strong preference to discuss an article in the textbook other than those listed below, please talk to me about it. I may be able to work something out to accomodate you.Second Major Paper Assignment and Related Matters
Spring 2010
Instructor: Dr. Jan Garrett
Last Revised: April 5, 2010
Listing of Key Concepts in Assigned Focus Articles (revised March 2010)
Please be sure to give me an accurate word count on the paper itself. This is a four-stage process to be done in relation to articles most of which are in Analyzing Moral Issues. Points can be earned at each stage except the first. At no stage in this process is plagiarism permitted. You are responsible for having read and understood Dept of English Policy and FAQ's on Plagiarism
I. Select a focus article from one of the permitted articles below, listed by authors whose names occur at least once outside parentheses. Keep in mind that you must eventually demonstrate understanding of a reasoned article from a contrary perspective (suggestions [Note] are given inside parentheses).
Selection dates: Beginning March 26 (for the 9:10 a.m. class)
Beginning March 29 (for the 11:30 a.m. class)No more than two persons can work on the same focus article. People who sign up for the same focus article will be expected to coordinate class presentations. See Part III.
Send me by email the name of the author of your requested focus article. Do this as soon as possible after 7 a.m. beginning on the article selection (start) date . If you wish to indicate a second preference, I will try to accomodate you with that if your first preference is already taken. If both are taken, I will let you know and you can request another.
Do not chooose a topic that you addressed in either your short essay or first major paper.
Chapter 2: M. Warren or Thomson (Marquis or Serrin); Noonan (M. Warren); Thomson (Hales)II. Analysis of Article. 15 points.
Avoid this topic if earlier paper topic was pornography or sex
Chapter 3: Salvalescu (article by David Lore; look for other articles critical of gene therapy and genetic enhancement on the CRG site);
Chapter 5: Van Den Haag or Morris (Bedau or Reiman);
Bedau (Van den Haag or Morris)
Chapter 6: Husak (Wilson); Wilson (Husak)
Chapter 11: Luban (Note on Luban), Trachtenberg (Paul), Paul (Trachtenberg), Granoff "Peace & Security"
(Coady, 592-597.1), Coady, 592-597.1 (Granoff, "P&S")
Special topic: Afghanistan War
Chapter 12: Regan (Narveson or Cohen); Cohen (Regan)
Singer (Cohen)
Chapter 12: Devall-Sessions (Watson); Watson (Devall-Sessions);
Note on Watson article. Warren (Cohen or Devall-Sessions)
Torture: E. Press (Dershowitz); see website, Contemporary Issues.
See also Buffachi-Arrigo (Dershowitz)To help you understand the context of the article, read the introduction to the chapter in which the article occurs. Then, to help you appreciate the range of possible positions on the topic of your article, read an article indicated by the names in parentheses that has a contrary position.
(If there is no parenthesized name, we must either find a contrary position somewhere else or take a special approach that departs from the approach recommended below. See me on an individual basis about this.)
Due April 2 for 9:10 class, April 7 for 11:30 class
You have a choice of three methods (if you are focusing on an article in the Boss anthology):
A. Answer as many of the Critical Reading Questions that correspond to your chosen article as possible, up to three pages, double-spaced.III. Prepare and give a five minute presentation about the article to the class.B. Following the template Analyzing the Logic of an Article answer as many of the questions as possible within approximately three pages, double spaced.
C. Do an Analytical Outline and Logical Summary according to these instructions.
(The grade on this will count toward your final grade but the words will not count toward the total word count. I will not be checking to see where you are quoting and paraphrasing from your focus article, though it would be a good idea to keep track of quotations for later purposes.)
When doing this assignment, it is good practice to make sure you understand the key concepts being used by the author. A test of such understanding is whether you can define the words or phrases corresponding to these concepts so as to bring out the meaning they have for the author of the article. I have provided a list of many of these key concepts, organized by article, for your use.
About 6 points.Presentations in the order of the articles will likely begin about April 9 for the 9:10 class, April 12 for the 11:30 class
The presentation should be more than an oral reading of the product of stage II. It would be very choppy if it were. (The "script" of your presentation can be a rewording and expansion of your analysis, but it should be a step closer to the final paper than the analysis.)
Note: The presentation should not assume that the audience has read the article.
If two students are working on the same article, they should divide the work on the presentation in half; each would take five minutes and present on the same day.
Attendance during your classmates' presentations is expected. There will be opportunities for discussion and on the final exam you will be expected to answer questions or write essays on some of the articles discussed.
IV. Analyze and discuss the article in essay form. (35 points)
Due Date: April 26 for 9:10 class, April 30 for 11:30 classIMPORTANT NOTE: However you did it, the Article Analysis that you gave me in fulfillment of Phase II and I returned to you with my feedback must be given to me once more along with your essay itself.
This is the second major paper assignment. On this assignment your word count may be included toward the total word count for the course. Indeed, it should be sufficient to complete the required word count of 3300 for the two major papers and the short paper. Please be sure to give me an accurate word count on the paper itself. Once again, directly quoted material, as well as notes and bibliography, should not be included in this word count.
I shall expect you to use quotation, documentation, and bibliography as appropriate.
If you have done a thorough job on an analytical outline in stage II, you ought to be able to write most of the essay as an elaboration of your work in stage II.
The best essays will go beyond explanation of the author's reasoning to evaluate the reasoning of the author from a contrasting perspective. High-quality articles you have read that advocate a contrary position can give you some additional perspective. Normally, this would be the article whose author's name in parentheses accompanies your focus author in the original list. You may also look up contrary views available outside the text. If you are unsure whether the contrary piece outside the text is of sufficiently high quality, please consult your instructor. If I cannot find the contrary piece by a quick internet search based on information you have supplied me, you should supply me a copy of it. See also the Argument Evaluation page prepared for other Philosophy courses.
But remember: whatever criticisms you make of an author need themselves to be backed up with relevant reasons and evidence, and stated with the use of clear concepts.
Some Reminders
Use 10-12 point type in a common font, e.g., Times Roman. Use one inch margins.
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.
See Guidelines on Quotation and Documentation of Sources.
If you have any questions about this assignment, ask for clarification as soon as possible.
Notes
Note on Luban. There is no article in the Boss anthology that advocates a position directly contrary to Luban's position, but the article itself fairly summarizes the position he is critiquing and you ought to be able to reconstruct it from Luban himself. (See also p. 581 and cases 2 and 5.)
Note on Watson. The Watson article "A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics" is no longer in the Boss anthology, but I can get you a copy.
Note on Buffachi-Arrigo. Vittorio Bufacchi and Jean Maria Arrigo, "Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument." This is a recent article from the Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 3, 2006. Unlike Press's article, which is a competent journalist's summary of the debate a few years back, Bufacchi and Arrigo write as moral philosophers. The structure of their argument is closer to the surface. I can provide you with a copy of this article.
Note on Afghanistan topic. Read Coady article in chapter 11, which is your focus article for purpose of article analysis unless I am able to supply you in time with critical reading questions for one of the Obama speeches; Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech, Obama's Justification for Continuing Afghan War, Contrary Positions: The Speech Obama Should Have Given); tikkun.org (search the site for late 2009 and early 2010 writings by Michael Lerner and William Polk); additional critical articles on the War in The Nation and at Foreign Policy in Focus (search by topic).