Each of our assigned readings offers arguments. For example, Rousseau argues that democracy gives citizens a free and equal status. The readings for this essay will be any reading you did not discuss in your first paper (however, try to discuss readings after the state of nature section). You may discuss (critically or constructively) one argument.
An outline of what your paper should look like:
1. Introduction paragraph: Very briefly introduce the topic. What will you explain? Thesis statement: what you will argue for and how.
Thesis statement: I will show that ____’s argument that ___ should be rejected. I will support my claim by showing that ___’s premise that ___ is false. I will show that it is false by ____(giving empirical evidence, a counterexample, an analogy, a thought experiment, etc)___.
Examples: “I will argue that taxation is always unjust. I will support my claim by showing that taxes aim for a pattern of wealth distribution, which disrupts people’s life plans.”
“I will offer a reason to reject the principle of utility. My reason to reject the principle is that it allows that the happiness of some can outweigh the pain of others. I offer the example of capitalists’ and landholders’ happiness outweighing and justifying the misery of the poor if it is the case that capitalist economies maximize aggregate happiness.”
2. Exposition section: Explain the author’s (Wolff’s, Mill’s, Anderson’s, Rawls’s, and so on) main argument that you will criticize, focusing on the premise you will criticize (or defend).
3. Argument Section: support your conclusion with one strong reason. Arguments are composed of a series of premises (evidence) that supports a conclusion. Each paragraph should be a defense of one premise (usually). The premises together should support the conclusion. You should not have a paragraph that supports some other consideration. For example, if you are supporting the claim that utilitarianism allows sacrifices of some people for the happiness of others, each of your paragraphs should support a premise that supports your conclusion. You should not, for instance, have a paragraph explaining that utilitarianism ALSO does not care directly about distributions of goods (e.g., wealth).
In short, focus on criticizing (or defending) ONE premise. Only offer ONE criticism (or novel reason supporting) of the premise. When writing your ONE criticism (or defense), think of potential ways the author (or someone who disagrees) can reply to you and try to block these potential criticisms. Alternatively, you can respond directly to potential criticisms.
4. Potential Objection to your argument
1) Come up with the best potential objection to your argument that you can think of, and
2) offer your best reply defending your case.
For instance, if your exposition section explains Miller’s case for state borders and your argument section offers a critical argument against borders, then you should consider how Miller might reply to your criticism and offer a response to the potential objection.
Approximately 1,000 words.
this is an essay on the book that I will be linking below , you must think of this strategically and percisly.
Criteria :
Thesis Statement
You provide a thesis statement that informs your reader what you will argue and how you will support your conclusion. For example, “I will argue that utilitarianism is too difficult to apply in practice because it requires us to make interpersonal comparisons of what we value.” Your thesis is novel and interesting. That is, it moves the conversation forward by adding something new. I can tell that you are thinking critically about the ethical issue
Exposition
You provide an accurate description, in your OWN WORDS (no quotes please), of the view I asked you to discuss. Your interpretation is charitable. In other words, you describe the view in the best possible light rather than providing a “straw person” argument. Recall that a “straw person” argument is misrepresenting someone’s argument so that you can easily criticize it.
Argument
With an argument, your aim is to convince your reader of some conclusion. Assume that your reader is a serious philosopher who disagrees with your conclusion. She or he is open-minded and concerned with finding the truth about how to act morally. A full score means that your argument is interesting, well thought out, and focused on using one reason to support your conclusion. If you use an example, counterexample, or analogy, it is relatively uncontroversial. After all, you are trying to convince someone who disagrees with you.
Potential objection and your reply
You offer an interesting and well-thought-out potential objection to your argument. The potential objection is strong, which shows that you are being charitable in thinking of views with which you disagree. Your reply to the objection is well-thought-out, focused, and strong.
please chose a topic from the readings that is also in this sllide show I have attatched.
