ABORTION

ABORTION  

In this paper, you will:

• Explain a philosophical debate,
• Use at least 2 sources in your explanation of the debate, using 1 source in your explanation of the argument and using a 2^nd source in your explanation of the objection to the argument
• Give your own arguments/reasons in defending your own stance on the debate (i.e. give your own arguments/reasons for agreeing with the argument or agreeing with the objection),
• Use a total of 4 sources, 2 of which must be outside sources (“outside sources” are sources not used in class).

As with the 3^rd paper, the 4^th paper has both an expository task and an evaluative task, and you will be required to explain a philosophical debate and give your own arguments for taking your own stance on it (i.e. for agreeing with the argument in the debate or with the objection to the argument). Just as in the 3^rd paper, “philosophical debate” refers to a discussion containing an argument and an objection (or objections) against that argument.

In the 4^th paper, however, the argument and the objection to the argument that you focus on must come from different sources and you must use those sources in explaining them. For example, if you want to explain a debate involving Thomson’s violinist argument and objections to it, you might consider Jeff McMahan’s discussion of a handful of objections to Thomson’s argument in his book The Ethics of Killing (see especially Chapter 4, section 9). To explain this debate, you would explain the main argument (the violinist argument), which requires explaining some of Thomson’s arguments in “A Defense of Abortion”, and then you would explain an objection to that argument (one that McMahan considers), which requires explaining some of McMahan’s reasoning in The Ethics of Killing. This would satisfy requirement (2) above.

Just as with the 2^nd and 3^rd papers, you are required to give your own arguments/reasons for taking your own stance, which in the 4^th paper means giving your own arguments/reasons for agreeing with the argument in the debate (= for thinking that the argument is not undermined by the objection) or for agreeing with the objection in the debate (= for thinking that the argument is undermined by the objection). And, as before, the arguments/reasons you give for taking your own stance should be your own reasons, and not simply those of another philosopher or the like.

Finally, your final paper is more of a research paper than the previous papers, requiring you to use 4 sources, 2 of which must be outside sources. 2 of the 4 sources must be used in the explanation of the debate (as stated above), but the other 2 may be used either in your explanation of the debate or in your own arguments for your own stance. All the sources that you use must be used to either explain others’ arguments (or objections to arguments) or in support of your own arguments.

Technical Requirements:

Your paper must use a readable 12-point font (e.g. Times New Roman, Arial, Cambria), be double-spaced, and have 1-inch margins. You must format it using MLA, APA, Chicago Style, or some other standardized academic format. The most important requirement is that you cite the original source whenever you mention an idea that is not yours (and you should list all sources in a “references” or “bibliography” page at the end).

The paper should be 2,100-3,000 words in length (approximately 7-10 pages).

You must turn in an electronic copy in Word format via Blackboard (no physical copy is required). (If Blackboard is not working for you when you’re trying to submit it, then email me a copy of your paper in Word format.)

Suggested Prompts:

You can write on ANY philosophical debate engaged in by the texts that we have already read for class. (One side of the debate might come from an outside source, of course.) The following are only some suggestions of appropriately sized topics/prompts that you might write on:

• In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that a common argument against abortion (for the common argument, see page 23, lines 45-52) doesn’t in fact show that abortion is immoral. One (hypothetical) example that she uses to argue that the common argument fails is that of the violinist attached to you (which occurs between line 53 on page 23 and line 15 on page 24). On pages 364-392 of his book, The Ethics of Killing, Jeff McMahan considers four objections to Thomson’s argument (sections 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 of Chapter 4 each discuss the reasoning/argument behind one of the four objections). Explain Thomson’s violinist argument and one of the objections against it discussed by McMahan (e.g. the one based on biological relationships in section 9.3). Do you think that the objection successfully undermines Thomson’s violinist argument? After explaining the debate, give your own reasons/arguments for answering this question.
• In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer argues that many of us are morally obligated to provide a significant amount of assistance (financial or otherwise) to others in need, arguing for this by using the example of the drowning child (see page 69, lines 9-63 and especially lines 9-28). Richard Arneson considers 3 reasons for thinking that Singer’s conclusion about morality is too demanding and that we ought to reject his argument (see his paper, “Moral Limits on the Demands of Beneficence?”). Explain Singer’s drowning child argument and one of the objections against it discussed by Arneson. Do you think that the objection successfully undermines Singer’s argument? After explaining the debate, give your own reasons/arguments for answering this question.
• In “Reasons for Loving”, Laurence Thomas argues that there are no good justifications, i.e. justificatory reasons, for (romantically) loving a particular person. He has two arguments for this. First, he argues (see especially lines 13-53 of page 125) that if there were justifications for loving a particular person, then loving a particular person would be irrational in certain cases; and he concludes that we ought to deny that there are justifications for loving a particular person because it is clearly false that love would be irrational in such cases. In his second argument, he argues (see especially lines 29-48 of page 126) that if there were justifications for loving a particular person, then in some cases a person could have a right to or a claim on another person’s love; and he concludes that we ought to deny that there are justifications for loving a particular person because it is clearly false that someone can have a right to or a claim on another person’s love. In “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, Niko Kolodny argues that there are some qualities people have that can justify loving particular persons without being undermined by the kinds of objections made by Thomas (Kolodny mentions them on page 135 in his intro paragraph and defends his view against such objections in sections 4 and 5 of his article). Explain one of Thomas’s two arguments for the view that there are no justifications for loving a particular person and Kolodny’s counter-argument for thinking that Thomas’s arguments do not undermine the view that there are justifications for loving a particular person. Do you think that Kolodny’s argument succeeds in undermining Thomas’s argument? After explaining the debate, give your own reasons/arguments for answering this question

Some Tips & Guidelines:

• How to find outside sources:
  1. Google Scholar – You can search for a reading covered in class and click on the “cited by” link to find influential articles and books that cite the reading in question. This is also a great way to look up any of the sources mentioned above, particularly articles (although sometimes even books are available through your library login). (When I cite any of the readings from class in this document, I cite the pages/lines used in the class reading packet.)
  2. Philosophy encyclopedias: The one I use the most is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is usually very accessible and produced by some of the most authoritative philosophers on a variety of topics. Another one is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Although the latter isn’t often written by the most influential philosophers on topics, the vast majority of articles on it are fantastic. They are both online and free to use.
  3. Librarians: Asking your library for a librarian who knows about philosophy or the humanities can be a great way to find specific databases to use with your library account.
  4. Asking me: If all else fails, I will help you out – email me!
• Read and re-read the Jim Pryor and Peter Horban articles on how to write effective philosophy papers. Both were assigned readings for class and are in the reading packet.
• Give an independent explanation of the debate and only then proceed to evaluate it. One of the most common mistakes is to express your thoughts on an argument or debate at the same time as you are explaining it. This makes it difficult for the reader to know whether you are summarizing somebody else’s claims or expressing your own view. A simple way to avoid this is to first give a concise independent explanation of a philosophical argument or debate by dedicating a certain portion of the paper to only explaining the argument or debate. Afterwards, you can go on to give your own reasons for agreeing/disagreeing. (It is typically better in general to spend more time defending your own stance on an argument than explaining it. In this paper, you should probably spend around one-half to two-thirds of your paper on defending your own stance.)
• Pick a small debate to focus on. Another common error is to try to tackle a very general argument or debate rather than focusing on a smaller aspect of it. Suppose you decide to write on the Thomson paper. It would be unwise to explain its entire main argument, which argues in several steps that the premise that fetuses are persons does not entail that abortions are always immoral. That argument is very difficult and far too abstract and general to do this effectively in two pages. It would be wiser to focus on the specific sub-argument that Thomson is making when she discusses the first example of the violinist (on pp. 24-25). The same goes for explaining objections to an argument. Focusing on bite-sized parts of arguments and debates will also make it easier to defend your own stance effectively!
• Briefly state your thesis and provide a roadmap. As Pryor says, using long introductions about how controversial a topic is or how people have debated it for ages is just a waste of space. Instead, a good way to start your papers is to state your thesis – what it is that you will be claiming – and provide your reader with a “roadmap” or a broad outline of what you will be doing in the paper. If, e.g., you’re going to disagree with Thomson, you can say “I’ll explain Thomson’s objection against the common argument and then I will argue that her argument fails because of …”.
• Seek out help the moment you struggle. I am more than happy to discuss any issues with writing the final paper, regardless of what stage you are at in the writing process.