The Paper assignment will be formed of three sections – (1) an Argument Summary, (2) a Critical Objection to that argument, and (3) A Reply section.  Your Term Paper will focus on an applied ethics topic of your choice from this semester’s assigned readings; as you do the assigned readings this semester be on the lookout for a topic that you feel comfortable summarizing, objecting to, and defending from your objection.

Many of the assignments this semester is designed to help you improve your writing skills in these areas so you can excel at this assignment.  In this page, I’ll briefly discuss the contents of the Paper. 

I.  The Paper Contents

For this assignment, you’ll choose an applied ethics topic from this semester’s assigned readings to discuss (Duties to the Poor, Voting Rights, Drugs, Gun Rights, Abortion, Animal Rights, Euthanasia, or Affirmative Action).  Your Paper will include a summary and analysis of ONE applied ethics argument made by one of the authors from our readings, a critical objection to that argument (not the argument’s conclusion, but the argument itself!) and a reply to your objection.

Section 1:  Argument Summary

This section will have a summary, in your own words, of ONE of the author’s applied ethics arguments from the reading.  An applied ethics argument is a moral argument that we ought to do, or not do, something.  Applied ethical claims can be about personal ethics (ex:  You ought not cheat on your spouse.) or about social ethics (Ex:  You ought not pass legislation that criminalizes cheating on one’s spouse.).

Often an author will make several arguments in support of a moral conclusion.  For this assignment, you’re going to focus on ONE argument.  To fully summarize and explain the argument; you might need to summarize other arguments.  For example, an author might argue someone else’s argument is invalid (that its conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises) or has false premises (if the premises are false, then even if the argument is valid, the conclusion can still be false).  To successfully summarize this kind of critical argument, you’ll want to quote or summarize the argument the author is criticizing.

Make sure your summary is written for a general audience.  You may need to define technical terms and briefly explain the debate.

Note:  This is not a book report.  Your job is to summarize ONE argument: not the entire article.  

Section 2:  Critical Objection

Section 2 will consist of an original objection to the applied ethics argument you summarized in the earlier section.  (Note:  A critical objection must always focus on the argument, never the conclusion.  It’s not enough to object to the conclusion; you need to show there’s something wrong with the argument – that its premises are false, or the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.  If an argument is sound, the conclusion is true… even if you don’t like it!)

In philosophy, an objection is an argument against a theory, position, or argument.  Objections can take many forms.   Note that you can play “devil’s advocate” here and present an argument you don’t believe in.

• You can construct a counterexample that shows the argument has a false conclusion and explain it.
• You can argue that the argument has one or more false premises.   (You might argue that a moral premise is false or supply evidence that suggests an empirical claim is false.)
• You can argue that the argument is invalid.  (An invalid argument is an argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises.  There are many ways an argument can be invalid.  Some arguments have hidden premises that assume things the author forgot to argue for.  Sometimes an author confuses two different terms or ideas, for example one premise might refer to legal rights, and another moral rights.) 
• Sometimes an argument is invalid because the author is confused about a concept or idea.  If so, it might help to write a definition or give examples to better explain the concept or idea at the heart of the argument, and then show how the author’s argument turns on confusion about these concepts or ideas.  (For example, I suspect a lot of disagreement in the abortion debate stems from confusion over the term “person.”)

A satisfactory objection section will give your reader good reasons to doubt the conclusion of the argument summarized in section 1.  (Do not write a strawman argument – a purposely bad argument that easy to knock down.)

Keep in mind that a philosophical objection is a response to an argument, not a criticism of an author’s writing talents!  Do not say that author’s paper was poorly written, that it was boring, or that you had trouble reading it.

Note: Your objection can be built on the work of others.  For example, if you choose to summarize an anti-abortion argument, you might base your objection on one of the pro-choice arguments we’ve discussed in class or referenced in the reading you’re summarizing.  If your objection is based on someone else’s work, cite the source, and reference the author by name.  Make sure that your objection includes something original: this can be a thought experiment, example, definition of one or more terms being discussed, etc.

Section 3:  Reply

Section 3 will consist of an original reply to your objection.  Generally, a reply will take one of two forms:

(1) A satisfactory reply can argue that your Section 2 Objection fails.  This can be written from the perspective of the author you summarized in Section 1, from your own perspective, or you can play “devil’s advocate” here an argument for a position you don’t hold.

(2) Alternatively, a satisfactory reply can concede that Section 2 Objection gives us good reason to doubt your summarized argument and try to discuss how one might progress.  You might offer a different argument in favor of the position discussed in section 1 or discuss how the author in section 1 might try to revise their theory to keep as much of their original conclusion as they can.  Again, feel free to play “devil’s advocate” here, but try not to write a strawman.

In either case, a satisfactory reply will prove that you understand both sides of the moral debate in question, as well as the practical implications of the arguments you’ve made throughout the paper.  This does not have to be the “final word” on the debate; though if there are some concepts or ideas that you think will need to be explained or defined to resolve the debate, you can go into some detail here.

If you need answers to this assignment, WhatsApp +1 646 978 1313 or send us an email to admin@shrewdwriters.com and we will reply instantly. We provide original answers that are not plagiarized, please try our service.