In this course, we have explored many moral theories such as consequentialism and non-consequentialism. Which moral theory, of those specifically mentioned in your textbook, do you find most reasonable? Explain the theory to the best of your ability. What makes the particular theory better or stronger than the others? What are some problems with the theory? Despite its problems, what makes the theory most compelling to you? Be sure to apply the moral criteria of adequacy (in Chapter 2) to help you better assess your theory.
This assignment is primarily exhaustive and analytical. It is designed to show your understanding of the philosophical issues and develop your own positions regarding them.
Basic Specifications
Be sure to respond to all parts of the topic question and to all questions raised in the topic description. The result should be an essay composed of paragraphs (i.e., not isolated sentences or sentence-fragments). Be sure to follow the basic structure of an essay that we discussed (i.e. introductory paragraph, thesis statement, body paragraphs, concluding paragraph).
Your answer to the topic question should total at least 500 words. Shorter papers will not be accepted; longer papers are fine.
Please put your name on your paper and your class number (PHI 227). Do not copy the topic question onto your paper.
Submit your paper in either .doc, .docx, or .pdf format. Do not submit your paper by email. I would even suggest keeping an electronic copy and/or a hard copy of your paper.
In responding to the topic you have selected, consult and discuss material only from the class texts that we have read, as well as your own notes.
The entire content of the paper must NOT be a summary of what another philosopher said. It MUST include your own reasoning, made explicit in writing. If you choose to agree with another philosopher, you must include your own assessment of whether they have made valid arguments, provided sufficient or compelling evidence for the points they made, or have made some other contribution to your understanding of the topic. You should also explain why you concluded that philosopher’s arguments or positions were compelling or valid (or not). Include reasoning, not unsupported opinions.
Be sure to reference the primary texts that we are using. Do NOT use outside sources unless stated otherwise. You will need to show what you think this philosopher meant by what they said and demonstrate that by direct reference (the exact page number is sufficient). Show what in the text supports the reasoned inferences you make about the philosophers’ meanings.
Quotations must not make up more than twenty percent of the paper. Your reasoning, analyses, and arguments are central to this paper.
Make sure you use proper citations. Use footnotes, endnotes, or in-text annotations whenever you quote a source. If you are not sure of how to use footnotes/endnotes or parenthetical annotations, how to cite a text properly, or how to write a bibliography/reference list, consult the online MLA Style Manual, or Chicago Manual of Style. If you prefer to use another standard method of documentation (APA style, for example), that is fine too. I do not care which style of citation and documentation you use (MLA, Chicago, APA), as long as it is consistent and complete.
