Deadlines
Writing Help
|
Important files to download:
Example of 'A' short exposition paper:
Example of 'A' short analysis paper:
Example of 'A' short critical paper:
|
For writing tips, go to
A Rulebook for Arguments Purdue Online Writing Lab The Elements of Style MLA Handbook | ||||||||||
Instructions
Short papers
You are required to write three short (750 words) papers based on the prompt that I provide. Be sure to cite all direct quotes and paraphrases. You must submit to Blackboard SafeAssign.
Prompt #1
This paper is purely expository; you should not critique the position or bring in your own analysis or research. Your task is to provide a clear and focused explication of the relevant parts of the philosophical position presented in the indicated reading. Keep in mind your goal should be depth, detail, and precision--not breadth. Here's the specific prompt:
Rosalind Hursthouse argues that moral status arguments are unnecessary for and can even be detrimental to animal ethics. How does she reach this conclusion? What does she think is problematic about focusing on our "circle of concern" in this way?
Keep in mind that her article addresses several issues, not all of which are strictly relevant for this question. Make sure you provide pertinent definitions of terms.
Prompt #2
This paper is purely compare/contrast; you should not critique the positions or argue for the superiority of one view over the other. Here is the prompt:
Both Peter Singer and Tom Regan view themselves as animal liberationists, but they disagree on what animal liberationism involves--philosophically and practically. Analyze their different positions on liberationism. How deep is this disagreement? Is there any room for agreement? What are the implications of this divide between Singer and Regan? (In other words: What does it matter?)
Keep your analysis focused, and be sure to define key terms. You will not be able to discuss all of the ways in which their views differ in 750 words, so remember that depth and precision matter more than breadth. You should incorporate both Singer's article as well as Regan's.
Prompt #3
In this paper, your task is to provide a single compelling criticism of the below position. Do not waste words giving too much in the way of exposition or context for the debate; focus on developing one nicely nuanced and precise counterargument to the stated position:
There are no significant ethical hurdles to creating genetically modified animals with capacities that are very close to, meet, or surpass current humans' capacities. There is no "threat to humanity" here.
You should a) explain how you understand this position (interpret charitably), and b) provide one full critique of this position. You may only use class materials. Remember that depth and precision matter more than breadth, and define key terms.
Debate contribution
On March 26th, we will have a debate on a topic related to the course material. You will work with a group of students to present a case for your side of the issue. The night before the debate, you (each student) must submit 300 words on what you want to contribute to the debate. Some possible questions you can respond to as your contribution: What are the competing interests or obligations in this issue? How should the moral interests be weighed or understood? Based on your position, what is the most challenging aspect of resolving these ethical problems? What is a problem with one of the opposing views? Do not attempt to answer all of these questions in your paper. Focus on one particular aspect of the case that you will present with your team. Depth and thoughtfulness are more important than breadth. Submit to Blackboard SafeAssign.
Please reference the emailed document for more specifics:
You are required to write three short (750 words) papers based on the prompt that I provide. Be sure to cite all direct quotes and paraphrases. You must submit to Blackboard SafeAssign.
Prompt #1
This paper is purely expository; you should not critique the position or bring in your own analysis or research. Your task is to provide a clear and focused explication of the relevant parts of the philosophical position presented in the indicated reading. Keep in mind your goal should be depth, detail, and precision--not breadth. Here's the specific prompt:
Rosalind Hursthouse argues that moral status arguments are unnecessary for and can even be detrimental to animal ethics. How does she reach this conclusion? What does she think is problematic about focusing on our "circle of concern" in this way?
Keep in mind that her article addresses several issues, not all of which are strictly relevant for this question. Make sure you provide pertinent definitions of terms.
Prompt #2
This paper is purely compare/contrast; you should not critique the positions or argue for the superiority of one view over the other. Here is the prompt:
Both Peter Singer and Tom Regan view themselves as animal liberationists, but they disagree on what animal liberationism involves--philosophically and practically. Analyze their different positions on liberationism. How deep is this disagreement? Is there any room for agreement? What are the implications of this divide between Singer and Regan? (In other words: What does it matter?)
Keep your analysis focused, and be sure to define key terms. You will not be able to discuss all of the ways in which their views differ in 750 words, so remember that depth and precision matter more than breadth. You should incorporate both Singer's article as well as Regan's.
Prompt #3
In this paper, your task is to provide a single compelling criticism of the below position. Do not waste words giving too much in the way of exposition or context for the debate; focus on developing one nicely nuanced and precise counterargument to the stated position:
There are no significant ethical hurdles to creating genetically modified animals with capacities that are very close to, meet, or surpass current humans' capacities. There is no "threat to humanity" here.
You should a) explain how you understand this position (interpret charitably), and b) provide one full critique of this position. You may only use class materials. Remember that depth and precision matter more than breadth, and define key terms.
Debate contribution
On March 26th, we will have a debate on a topic related to the course material. You will work with a group of students to present a case for your side of the issue. The night before the debate, you (each student) must submit 300 words on what you want to contribute to the debate. Some possible questions you can respond to as your contribution: What are the competing interests or obligations in this issue? How should the moral interests be weighed or understood? Based on your position, what is the most challenging aspect of resolving these ethical problems? What is a problem with one of the opposing views? Do not attempt to answer all of these questions in your paper. Focus on one particular aspect of the case that you will present with your team. Depth and thoughtfulness are more important than breadth. Submit to Blackboard SafeAssign.
Please reference the emailed document for more specifics:
| in-class_debate_bioethics_and_animals.pdf |
Final project
You should find a topic relevant to the course that excites you. The topic should be manageable; in other words, “research on chimpanzees” is not a manageable topic because it is too vast. Narrow in on a smaller topic that you can lay out and discuss critically. Once you find an alluring bioethical problem, you will need to research some of the necessary facts related to the topic, and you will also need to reflect on the relevant arguments that scholars have published. Then you need to make your own contribution to the debate. This project is meant to serve as a launching pad in case you wish to pursue it in the future for advocacy or scholarship purposes. You are free to take up any well-argued and well-researched position you find compelling. You need to email me by March 11th what your idea is for this project (failure to do so will affect your participation grade). Your project can be in one of three formats: 1) a traditional term paper, 2) a website, or 3) an extended Power Point (which you would not present). If you have another idea for how to present your project, you need to have it approved by me. Regardless of which format you choose, your project should have the equivalent of 5-7 double-spaced pages of text. You need to a) lay out the ethical issue, b) explain and analyze some published philosophical viewpoints on the topic, c) carefully and precisely argue how you believe the problem should be understood or resolved, and c) provide a compelling objection to your position. If you have the space, I will give extra points for including a nicely reasoned response to the objection. The final project is due on May 6th at 11 am (our final exam slot). Submit the paper, website link, or Power Point PDF through Blackboard SafeAssign.
Please reference this document for more detailed instructions:
You should find a topic relevant to the course that excites you. The topic should be manageable; in other words, “research on chimpanzees” is not a manageable topic because it is too vast. Narrow in on a smaller topic that you can lay out and discuss critically. Once you find an alluring bioethical problem, you will need to research some of the necessary facts related to the topic, and you will also need to reflect on the relevant arguments that scholars have published. Then you need to make your own contribution to the debate. This project is meant to serve as a launching pad in case you wish to pursue it in the future for advocacy or scholarship purposes. You are free to take up any well-argued and well-researched position you find compelling. You need to email me by March 11th what your idea is for this project (failure to do so will affect your participation grade). Your project can be in one of three formats: 1) a traditional term paper, 2) a website, or 3) an extended Power Point (which you would not present). If you have another idea for how to present your project, you need to have it approved by me. Regardless of which format you choose, your project should have the equivalent of 5-7 double-spaced pages of text. You need to a) lay out the ethical issue, b) explain and analyze some published philosophical viewpoints on the topic, c) carefully and precisely argue how you believe the problem should be understood or resolved, and c) provide a compelling objection to your position. If you have the space, I will give extra points for including a nicely reasoned response to the objection. The final project is due on May 6th at 11 am (our final exam slot). Submit the paper, website link, or Power Point PDF through Blackboard SafeAssign.
Please reference this document for more detailed instructions:
| instructions_for_final_project_bioethics_and_animals.pdf |
