o

1

More on Ethics Paper #2: 2 Articles and focus on their best arguments. Sample Outline and more helps.
Last Update: May 4, 2018
Choose two articles from peer-reviewed journals by philosophers with one arguing for and one arguing against.
· If you do not have time or the ability to ask the MSU librarians to help you research and find two articles (5 of you will be in this boat every semester), pay the $7 for a used Stephen Satris Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues (2013) ISBN-13: 978-0078050091 and choose any chapter besides (abortion and the death penalty). No excuses tolerated (and I hear them every semester). Spend the $7 for a used Satris book if you can’t do the research.
· The ethical issues we explore are off limits unless the instructor approves the topic and articles. So, no death penalty, no abortion, no free speech, no economic justice, no friendship and social media and whatever we cover. If you find two great articles that are under those categories, email your instructor for approval. Otherwise, do not do that to avoid being lowered a letter grade.
Grading: Content (40 pts.); Spelling/Grammar (30 pts.); Structure/Style (30 pts.) = 100

Content: 40 points

· Paper fairly and completely explains at least one argument of the two philosophers chosen.
· Displays an understanding of the overall argument in both articles.
· No major mistakes in understanding the core of the particular argument examined.
· Critiques of the arguments are fair (we can usually find at least something to agree with in an argument where we ultimately disagree) and display the principle of charity
· Critiques are thorough and draw on personal ethical theories of the writer (AU, RU, Kantian Deontology, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Divine Command Theory, Egoism, etc.), theoretical arguments (based on moral principles), arguments from personal experience, argues from thought experiments (e.g. Rawls’ original position behind the “veil of ignorance”), and pragmatic (practical/utilitarian) arguments. You may use all or some of the above.
· 1/3 to 2/3 of the paper should be your original arguments. Explain the arguments of the authors as quickly and succinctly as possible. We can read these philosophers’ articles anytime. This is your paper and we want to see your arguments and thoughts on this issue.

Spelling/Grammar: 30 points

· 3 points subtracted for every 4 mistakes of spelling and grammar. (Proofread, proofread, proofread and trade papers with each other to help each other).

Structure/Style: 30 points

· Paper follows a logical structure and the roadmap provided in the introduction
· Cite, cite, cite.
· Material cited properly (don’t just cite for short quotes) in Chicago style:
· http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

· http://www.citationmachine.net/chicago

· No rhetorical questions (unless you are quoting a misguided philosopher who uses these rhetorical devices)
· Well-formed paragraphs that express one idea. Not too long. Not too short.
· No flowery language.
· Don’t define terms from a dictionary. Use definitions from our class materials if you need to define something.
· No fluff. No sentences without content. No obvious platitudes.
· Do not tell us that this is a debatable issue. That is fluff. – 2 points
· Do not tell us people disagree on this issue. That is obvious. Fluff. Cut.
· Do not tell us that there is no right or wrong on this issue. Fluff.
· -2 points if you do any of the above (or say similar things).

Advice: Learn these articles together in groups. Choose different arguments in each article to write on. Read your papers to friends. If they aren’t clear on the arguments, then go back and explain them better. If they don’t understand your critiques, give more evidence.
Sample Outline

Introduction (write out a rough one completely)

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis argue for and against abortions (respectively) in certain contexts. Thomson’s overall strategy is to assume common-sense substantial view of the self regarding the metaphysics of personhood, and she attempts to show that there is no moral requirement to sustain the fetus until birth in certain cases. Don Marquis argues against Thomson with his “Future Like Ours” argument. In my critique, I will be focused on Thomson’s “violinist argument” argument from analogy, and find that it fails from the perspective of Natural Theory, a version of Rawls’ famous thought experiment, and my own moral intuitions about what we should do with the violinist. In my examination of Marquis’ argument, I will argue that his “FLO” argument is weak and would justify more abortions in more cases than he envisions and that his choice to ignore the metaphysical question of personhood is a fatal flaw in this case. Ultimately, I conclude that both arguments are weak, but Marquis’ argument is more persuasive.
I. Thomson’s Violinist Argument from Analogy for Abortion

A. Example of the violinist explained (p. 222)
B. What Thomson concludes from this case: 3 points
a. Violinists are mean people (p. 222)
b. Kidnapping is morally permissible (p. 230, 250)
c. . . .
C. …

(You have the freedom to critique her here or save another section to combine critiques if that structure is better for your paper. You choose.)

II. Critique of Thomson’s Violinist Argument

A. Many disanalogies to pregnancy:
a. Pregnancy is not violent like the violinist case.
b. Pregnancy is the most natural thing in the biological world, and there is nothing natural about being hooked up via dialysis machine to Yo Yo Ma
c. Abortion is more analogous to calling a doctor to come chop off the head of the violinist.
d. The analogy would be better for having the fetus removed by C-section at the point of viability.

B. Thomson’s assumptions about our behavior in the violinist case are wrong
a. Most humans assume we should protect the weak and vulnerable and do the minimum to get them to safety. We don’t kill the violinist or call someone to come kill the violinist—we would call 911 and put a plea out on social media for someone to come help the violinist.
b. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the violinist, we would want to be brought to safety and not murdered in hotel room.
C. In conclusion, if we look at the violinist analogy as a pregnancy, we would not conclude abortion is moral. We should conclude the following:
a. As a violinist/fetus, we do not want a third party to kill us. We want 911 to be called and have a shot at living.
b. If the woman in the room/mother doesn’t want us, we think she should call for help and give us a shot at living instead of killing us. A simple call to 911 is not justified, but actually waiting with the violinist until help arrives before we leave. We don’t leave a child on the side of the road after calling 911. We wait for the police to be sure. Human life is too precious.
c. So, Thomson’s analogy seems to justify (at the very least) my mother carrying me (the fetus) to 20 weeks (the point of viability) and giving me up for adoption if it is 100% safe. If that procedure at 20 weeks isn’t safe, then bringing me to full term (i.e. making sure the violinist is in the hands of Emergency Medical Personnel) is the only morally permissible option.

III. Don Marquis’ FLO argument

A. . . .
a. . . .
b. . . .
B. . . .
a. . . .
b. . . .
IV. Critique of Don Marquis

A. Marquis gets . . . right
a. Argument from my personal experience.
i. Working as a housekeeper in Yellowstone National Park in college
b. Argument from two biblical principles: Tuffersaih 9:19 and Matthew 25
i.
B. Argument against Marquis: He cannot ignore the metaphysics of personhood
a. Marquis ignores personhood when he says … (p. 444)
b. Substantial View of the self should be the default position for 3 reasons
i. . . .
ii. . . .
iii. . . .

D. John Rawls’ thought experiment agrees with Rawls FLO argument
a. If we were in the original position (behind the veil of ignorance), we need to ask what kind of abortion laws we would want before we are conceived.
b. We could either be a fetus that is aborted or not aborted. We could be a pregnant woman who would want an abortion.
c. Given 20% of living human organisms are aborted in the USA, I would prohibit abortion to increase my odds from 80% to 99% (since some women will still get abortions on the black market)

Conclusion: (In a full paragraph, summarize what you did and remind us of your core arguments for/against the two authors).

In this paper, I argued . . . and . . . and concluded . . . and . . . based on . . . and .. . . .

Here is a sample of how you would critique someone (use any arguments you want)

Philosophers,
For your masterpieces, you are to explain the arguments by two authors as quickly and as succinctly as possible.  1/3 to 2/3 of your paper should be your own arguments.  We can read the articles of the guys you use ourselves if we want.  This is YOUR paper, so we want more of you than the authors.
Some of you aren’t sure how to use our arguments to be creative in our critiques.  Don’t put too much pressure on yourselves.  Just make sure you give arguments (i.e. reasons to believe your claims) about the authors’ arguments.
For example, this critique of one author uses arguments I think are weak or bad, but it doesn’t matter.  If you wrote this (with a little more content) you would get an A for analyzing the Bieb with 3-5 arguments. Be careful to explain why you might use a theory that you don’t believe is true. For instance, you might be a theist and argue against a view based on your view of the Bible, but then you might say, “For the sake of argument, if we assume God doesn’t exist, there remain these 3 problems with Pojman’s retributivist argument.”
Does that make sense? We want YOUR views, but you could draw on other theories if you explain why you are doing it: “Andy “Red Rifle” Dalton appeals to act utilitarian theory in his justification for kicking puppies for fun. While I find Kantian deontology to be more persuasive than utilitarianism, even on utilitarian grounds Dalton’s argument fails.” Then, explain why you think this.
Critique of Bieb’s view of “13 Reasons Why”
Justin Bieber argues in his article, “Why 13 Reasons is the Best Show Ever Made in History,” that this Netflix program is not just a work of art, but it should stop teen suicide and cause all viewers to be kinder and gentler to others.  I can agree with him that it is an entertaining show with characters we come to care about and with which we identify with at least one of them, but the claim that it will stop teen suicide and change high school counseling for the better and cause people to be more virtuous goes further than warranted.  There are four reasons why this is the case.
As someone who finds Jesus’ ethic and plan of spiritual formation the best path of moral growth, this show does not give that option for viewers.  The worldview of personal theism is never mentioned, and the prime example of a moral examplar, Jesus, is never cited or given any time on screen.  . . . and  . . . I realize this reason will not be compelling to my friends who find Christianity to be false, so I will appeal to other arguments.  [A more developed paragraph in your paper would be needed in your papers than this]. 
[If I were a Naturalist] As a Naturalist, I find this show to be misleading and dishonest in a few respects on my worldview:  (1) It assumes that good and evil and right and wrong exist; (2) It assumes some free will and real moral choices for individuals; (3) Without free will, the praising and blaming of persons in this show is incoherent; (4) Without the existence of substantial souls/selves (which cannot exist if naturalistic evolution is how we got here), blaming people and punishing them for past deeds also makes no sense if scientific atheism is true; Etc.  With regards to free will, the show does approach determinism in that the phrases “you killed her” are used, so this is closer to the truth of determinism.  The problem is that the show assumes only some actions are caused by external events (DNA plus environment), when all actions (even the ones that contributed to her depression) were caused.  . . . And . . . And . . . such and such . . . blah…. [this would need more]
[If you think Act Utilitarian theory is right] Secondly, if we look at this show through the eyes of an act utilitarian, this show might encourage suicide rather than discourage it in some cases. [You would have to add more to this paragraph to develop this point.] As a good utilitarian, we will have to tally up the lives saved from the show and the lives lost from the show.  
[If you think Kant was right . . .] My third argument comes from Kant in that iIf just one suicide comes about from this show, that loss to the world is morally impermissible to an incalculable degree. The producers of the show have violated the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in using people (viewers) as a means to an end. [Here I would add a few sentences why this is the case . . . ] Even if the use was unintentional, producers of film and television (on my view) should be held to higher standards. 
From my own personal experience with depression, this show could have pushed me over the edge if I had the means (tapes and casssettes and time) to do what the star of the show did in her dramatic explanation of her suicide. . . . and . . .  and . . .  [Add a lot more] All of us are different, but this point adds evidence for my Kantian argument above, and thus it is part of a cumulative case against Bieber’s view about the program.
Finally, if we were to apply a Rawlsian thought experiment to this case, we would all be floating in space not knowing if we were going to be bullies or the bullied in high school and if we are going to be persons susceptible to depression.   Those of us who won’t experience bullying and depression will not care about the show, but since there is a chance we could be bullied and depressed in high school, we would choose for this program not to exist at all just in case it might push us over the edge. 

In conclusion, let me review my points . . . .

Let me know if you have questions,
Tuffer
Meridian, Mississippi – May 3, 2017

1

M

o

r

e

o

n

Ethics Paper

#

2

:

2

A

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

a

n

d

f

o

c

u

s

o

n

t

h

e

i

r

b

e

s

t

a

r

g

u

m

e

n

t

s

.

S

a

m

p

l

e

O

u

t

l

i

n

e

a

n

d

m

o

r

e

h

e

l

p

s

.

Last Update: May 4, 2018

C

h

o

o

s

e

t

w

o

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

f

r

o

m

p

e

e

r

–

r

e

v

i

e

w

e

d

j

o

u

r

n

a

l

s

b

y

p

h

i

l

o

s

o

p

h

e

r

s

w

i

t

h

o

n

e

a

r

g

u

i

n

g

f

o

r

a

n

d

o

n

e

a

r

g

u

i

n

g

a

g

a

i

n

s

t

.

·

I

f

y

o

u

d

o

n

o

t

h

a

v

e

t

i

m

e

o

r

t

h

e

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

t

o

a

s

k

t

h

e

M

S

U

l

i

b

r

a

r

i

a

n

s

t

o

h

e

l

p

y

o

u

r

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

a

n

d

f

i

n

d

t

w

o

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

(

5

o

f

y

o

u

w

i

l

l

b

e

i

n

t

h

i

s

b

o

a

t

e

v

e

r

y

s

e

m

e

s

t

e

r

)

,

p

a

y

t

h

e

$

7

f

o

r

a

u

s

e

d

S

t

e

p

h

e

n

S

a

t

r

i

s

T

a

k

i

n

g

S

i

d

e

s

:

C

l

a

s

h

i

n

g

V

i

e

w

s

o

n

M

o

r

a

l

I

s

s

u

e

s

(

2

0

1

3

)

ISBN

–

13:

978

–

0078050091

a

n

d

c

h

o

o

s

e

a

n

y

c

h

a

p

t

e

r

b

e

s

i

d

e

s

(

a

b

o

r

t

i

o

n

a

n

d

t

h

e

d

e

a

t

h

p

e

n

a

l

t

y

)

.

N

o

e

x

c

u

s

e

s

t

o

l

e

r

a

t

e

d

(

a

n

d

I

h

e

a

r

t

h

e

m

e

v

e

r

y

s

e

m

e

s

t

e

r

)

.

S

p

e

n

d

t

h

e

$

7

f

o

r

a

u

s

e

d

S

a

t

r

i

s

b

o

o

k

i

f

y

o

u

c

a

n

’

t

d

o

t

h

e

r

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

.

·

T

h

e

e

t

h

i

c

a

l

i

s

s

u

e

s

w

e

e

x

p

l

o

r

e

a

r

e

o

f

f

l

i

m

i

t

s

u

n

l

e

s

s

t

h

e

i

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

o

r

a

p

p

r

o

v

e

s

t

h

e

t

o

p

i

c

a

n

d

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

.

S

o

,

n

o

d

e

a

t

h

p

e

n

a

l

t

y

,

n

o

a

b

o

r

t

i

o

n

,

n

o

f

r

e

e

s

p

e

e

c

h

,

n

o

e

c

o

n

o

m

i

c

j

u

s

t

i

c

e

,

n

o

f

r

i

e

n

d

s

h

i

p

a

n

d

s

o

c

i

a

l

m

e

d

i

a

a

n

d

w

h

a

t

e

v

e

r

w

e

c

o

v

e

r

.

I

f

y

o

u

f

i

n

d

t

w

o

g

r

e

a

t

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

s

t

h

a

t

a

r

e

u

n

d

e

r

t

h

o

s

e

c

a

t

e

g

o

r

i

e

s

,

e

m

a

i

l

y

o

u

r

i

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

o

r

f

o

r

a

p

p

r

o

v

a

l

.

O

t

h

e

r

w

i

s

e

,

d

o

n

o

t

d

o

t

h

a

t

t

o

a

v

o

i

d

b

e

i

n

g

l

o

w

e

r

e

d

a

l

e

t

t

e

r

g

r

a

d

e

.

Grad

ing

:

C

o

n

t

e

n

t

(

4

0

p

t

s

.

)

;

S

p

e

l

l

i

n

g

/

G

r

a

m

m

a

r

(

3

0

p

t

s

.

)

;

S

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

e

/

S

t

y

l

e

(

3

0

p

t

s

.

)

=

1

0

0

Content: 40 points

·

Paper fairly and completely explains

at least

one argument

of the two philosophers chosen.

·

Displays an understanding of the overall argument in both articles.

·

No major mistakes in understanding the core of the particular argument examined.

·

Critiques of the arguments are fair (we can usually find at least

something

to agree with in an

argument

where we ultimately disagree) and display the principle of charity

·

Critiques are thorough and draw on personal ethical theories of the writer (AU, RU, Kantian

Deontology, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Divine Command Theory, Egoism, etc.), theoretical

argume

nts (based on moral principles), arguments from personal experience, argues from

thought experiments (e.g. Rawls’ original position behind the “veil of ignorance”), and pragmatic

(practical/utilitarian) arguments. You may use all or some of the above.

·

1

/3 to 2/3 of the paper should be your original arguments. Explain the arguments of the authors

as quickly and succinctly as possible. We can read these philosophers’ articles anytime. This is

your

paper and we want to see your arguments and thoughts on t

his issue.

Spelling/Grammar: 30 points

·

3 points subtracted for every 4 mistakes of spelling and grammar. (Proofread, proofread,

proofread and trade papers with each other to help each other).

Structure/Style: 30 points

·

Paper follows a logical structure

and the roadmap provided in the introduction

·

Cite, cite, cite.

·

Material cited properly (don’t just cite for short quotes)

in Chicago style:

o

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/t

ools_citationguide.html

1

More on Ethics Paper #2: 2 Articles and focus on their best arguments.
Sample Outline and more helps.
Last Update: May 4, 2018
Choose two articles from peer-reviewed journals by philosophers with one arguing for
and one arguing against.
 If you do not have time or the ability to ask the MSU librarians to help you research and find two
articles (5 of you will be in this boat every semester), pay the $7 for a used Stephen Satris Taking
Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues (2013) ISBN-13: 978-0078050091 and choose any chapter
besides (abortion and the death penalty). No excuses tolerated (and I hear them every
semester). Spend the $7 for a used Satris book if you can’t do the research.
 The ethical issues we explore are off limits unless the instructor approves the topic and articles.
So, no death penalty, no abortion, no free speech, no economic justice, no friendship and social
media and whatever we cover. If you find two great articles that are under those categories,
email your instructor for approval. Otherwise, do not do that to avoid being lowered a letter
grade.
Grading: Content (40 pts.); Spelling/Grammar (30 pts.); Structure/Style (30 pts.) = 100
Content: 40 points
 Paper fairly and completely explains at least one argument of the two philosophers chosen.
 Displays an understanding of the overall argument in both articles.
 No major mistakes in understanding the core of the particular argument examined.
 Critiques of the arguments are fair (we can usually find at least something to agree with in an
argument where we ultimately disagree) and display the principle of charity
 Critiques are thorough and draw on personal ethical theories of the writer (AU, RU, Kantian
Deontology, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Divine Command Theory, Egoism, etc.), theoretical
arguments (based on moral principles), arguments from personal experience, argues from
thought experiments (e.g. Rawls’ original position behind the “veil of ignorance”), and pragmatic
(practical/utilitarian) arguments. You may use all or some of the above.
 1/3 to 2/3 of the paper should be your original arguments. Explain the arguments of the authors
as quickly and succinctly as possible. We can read these philosophers’ articles anytime. This is
your paper and we want to see your arguments and thoughts on this issue.
Spelling/Grammar: 30 points
 3 points subtracted for every 4 mistakes of spelling and grammar. (Proofread, proofread,
proofread and trade papers with each other to help each other).
Structure/Style: 30 points
 Paper follows a logical structure and the roadmap provided in the introduction
 Cite, cite, cite.
 Material cited properly (don’t just cite for short quotes) in Chicago style:
o http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html