Topic: State and fully explain a typical form of Utilitarianism. Many people think that Utilitarianism gives the wrong results in certain cases involving rights, criminal justice and distributive justice. Present, explain and fully evaluate objections to Utilitarianism based on a specific example of any two such cases. How might a utilitarian reply? What do you think?
Guidelines:
– Intro
• A brief introductory presentation of your thesis.
– If you find yourself writing something like “since the dawn of time, people have been
puzzled by…” or “The dictionary define x as…,” then you are not being brief.
• A brief preview of your plan for the paper.
– Main Part
• The general structure of the main part of your paper depends on your thesis.
– For example, if you are arguing for p, first, make sure to start with explaining what p
says. Next, present your argument, explain it, and provide rationales for your premises.
1
Then, present the best objection that you can think of against your argument and respond
to that objection.
– Another example. If your are arguing against an objection against p. Start by presenting
and explaining p and the targeted objection. Then, evaluate the argument (that is, the
targeted objection). Is it valid? If not, can you offer an alternative valid formulation of the
argument that capture the spirit of the argument? Is it sound? Which premise or premises
that you find to be false? What’s your argument against that premise(s)? What might your
opponent say against your argument? How would you respond?
– …
• The basic idea
– Explain what you’re arguing for. Present your argument clearly. Respond to potential
objections.
• Make the structure of your argument obvious
– Use connective words and signposts.
• e.g.: “because,” “therefore,” “however,” …
• e.g.: “I will argue that …,” “My first argument for p is that…,” “The second reason to
believe that p is that…,” “The opponent might respond to my argument by saying that
…,” “Further support for p comes from…,” “For example…,” “Here is a common
argument for p…,” “I think that the argument fails because…,” etc.
– Conclusion
• Avoid conclude with tentative/suggestive thoughts.
All theories must be stated in full and explained (terms defined, a couple of
illustrative examples). The only terms you don’t need to define are those that are not
specific to the topic—ordinary words of English, and logical terminology (‘argument’,
‘valid’, ‘sound’, ‘quantifier’, ‘modus ponens’, etc.)
All arguments are to be dealt with according to the “Extract/present, explain and
evaluate” procedure set out in the handout. Don’t mention an argument unless you’re
prepared to give it the full treatment.
In particular, make sure you explain every argument in full, i.e. define any
technical terms and give a full rationale for each premise. A rationale is a reason for
believing the premise, so make sure your rationales are not simply restatements of the
premises; despite what many politicians think, to repeat something (even often and
loudly) gives no reason for thinking it’s true.
Make sure also that you evaluate every argument. There is really no point
mentioning an argument if you don’t evaluate it. Furthermore, even if you think the
argument sound you should discuss some possible objection and explain why you think
the objection fails.
