philosophy writing paper-03

I’m studying for my Writing class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Please make sure to read all instructions carefully before writing your paper. In response to the prompt below, you are to write a 750 to 1000-word paper (3-4 double-spaced pages). Your paper should be typed in 12-point font, double-spaced, with 1” margins. You are required to submit your paper under the appropriate assignment on Canvas (there is no need to turn in a hard copy).

Citations

  • Failure to properly cite the text will result in a lower grade.
  • You are not required to submit a bibliography page, but you must include in-text citations. Every time that you make a reference to the text (e.g., when you [a] cite a passage, [b] paraphrase an idea, or [c] attribute a view to an author) you must include parentheses at the end of the sentence enclosing the page number from which the passage, idea or view is taken.

For example:

According to James Rachels, “morality demands that we be unselfish. How unselfish is a hard question…we are expected to be attentive to other people’s needs at least to some degree” (64)

James Rachels thinks that one requirement of morality is that humans act unselfishly (64).

  • You are not allowed to “cite” the slides for this class. If you want to cite an idea from the slides but are having trouble finding it in the text, just let me know and I will be more than happy to point you in the right direction.
  • You are not allowed to use secondary sources for this paper.

Writing expectations:

  • Your writing should be as clear and concise as possible, without sacrificing content.
  • You may quote passages from the text, but you should try to paraphrase when you can. I want to see that you can explain the material in your own words.
  • It is okay to use the first person, but remember you are not just “giving your opinion.” You should provide reasons for what you think.
  • You do not need to write a conclusion for this paper.
  • You should write a short introduction in which you state what you are going to argue in the paper. You should model your introduction on the one provided from the first assignment.

Your paper should incorporate the feedback that you received from the first paper. Make sure to review the comments and please come see me if you have any questions about them.

Please select ONE of the following options.

Option 1: Sandel versus Brennan and Jaworski

Part 1: explain in as much detail as possible Michael Sandel’s argument in favor of moral limits on markets (i.e., explain why he thinks some things should not be bought or sold). (1-1.5 pages double-spaced)

  • You should explain what he means by the argument from coercion and the argument from corruption and how these two arguments differ.
  • You should make use of at least one example to help illustrate Sandel’s position.

Part 2: explain in as much detail as possible Brennan and Jaworski’s argument against the idea that there should be inherent limits on markets. (1-1.5 pages double-spaced)

  • You should clarify what their main thesis is.
  • You should explain the different ways in which they think that markets could be limited (limits due to the principle of wrongful possession, incidental limits, and inherent limits).
  • You should make use of at least one example to help illustrate their position.

Part 3: state which of the two theories you take to be more convincing and provide an argument in support of this claim. (0.5-1 page double-spaced)

  • You should state clearly which of the two theories you take to be more convincing.
  • You should provide clear reasons in support of this claim.

Option 2: The Pros and Cons of Organ Sales

Part One: drawing from the course readings (Dworkin and Satz) provide the best possible argument that you can in support of organ markets. (1-1.5 pages double-spaced)

  • We have looked at several arguments in support of allowing for organ markets. While you need not address all of them, you should address the ones that you find to be most convincing.
  • Make sure to explain the arguments in detail. You may find it helpful to provide examples to illustrate what you mean.

Part Two: drawing from the course readings (Dworkin and Satz) provide the best possible argument that you can against organ markets. (1-1.5 pages double-spaced)

  • Again, you need not address all the arguments we have looked at, but you should consider the ones you take to be strongest.
  • Make sure to explain the arguments in detail. You may find it helpful to provide examples to illustrate what you mean.

Part 3: state which of the two positions (i.e., for or against organ markets) you take to be more convincing and provide an argument in support of this claim. (0.5-1 page double spaced)

  • You should state your position clearly.
  • You should provide clear reasons in support of this claim.

Excellent

Good

Competent

Needs improvement

Explanation of the first position.

15 points

Provides plenty of relevant detail. Key concepts are clearly explained in a way that shows strong command of material. No errors or mistakes.

Covers key aspects of the position but leaves out some relevant details. Key concepts are explained, but with some unclarity (e.g., over-reliance on quotes, or failure to explain connections between ideas). May include minor errors.

Covers some key aspects of the position but leaves out many significant details. Effort is made to explain key concepts, but with significant errors or unclarity. Suggests minimal familiarity with the text.

Does not cover key aspects of the position and leaves out many significant details. Little to no effort is made to engage with material, and/or includes major errors or unclarity.

Explanation of the second position

15 points

See above

See above

See above

See above

Argument in support of one of the two positions

10 points

Clearly states which of the two positions is stronger. Gives strong reasons (including textual support) for this claim. Demonstrates reflection.

States which of the two positions is stronger. May overlook minor details or include considerations that are not clearly relevant. The reasons offered are somewhat compelling.

Does not take a clear stance on which position is stronger, or does so in a way that is either unclear, or rests on a misunderstanding of the texts and/or is not clearly relevant. Offers weak reasons in support of the claim

Extremely limited or non-existent argument for one of the two positions. Does not demonstrate adequate engagement with the material.

Writing

10 points

Writing is clear, concise and well-organized. There are no significant grammatical errors.

Writing is mostly clear, and well-organized. There may be a few places where clarity could be improved, or slight organizational problems (e.g., repetition, wordiness, etc.).

Writing lacks clarity and concision. Grammatical or organizational errors occasionally prevent ideas from being articulated.

Significant issues in clarity. Grammatical or organizational errors often prevent ideas from being articulated.

Submit a Comment