1. In the “Discussion on Making All Things Equal,” Chuang-Tzu argues that once one understands the “Way,” then one can  respond “endlessly” to life. Part of this understanding requires us to  see life as a play of interdependent opposites in a never-ending cycle  of change (pp. 39-40).  

In light of this view of life, and claims like: “There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not acceptable,” can Chuang-Tzu’s philosophy offer a robust response to injustice, such as racism, sexism, wealth inequality, tyranny, etc., so as to right the wrongs (p. 40)?  

Or, does Chuang-Tzu’s philosophy instead require that we understand right and wrong as interdependent, and thus, that we passively accept such injustice, and simply “let it be” (p. 38)?

FINAL

PAPER ASSIGNMENT (ARGUMENT ANALYSIS)

PHIL

2

010: Intro to Philosophy

Instructor: S. Rancher

Note: Waiting ‘til the last minute to write your paper produces poor quality work and is simply stressful, which kills. Instead, try writing at least 2 hours a day (and no more than 3—at which point one’s mind typically goes numb and you waste your time and energy). So, find a coffee, find a computer, turn it on, open a word doc, sit down and write, do not google, Facebook, etc.—in fact, you might want to disable your internet connection, if you cannot control yourself (this is what I do)—and after two or three hours, but not a second before, you can stop writing. Next day, repeat and so on…Tackling a little everyday also helps you to build a relationship with your topic (you’ll think about it even when you’re not writing) and to avoid the stage fright of sitting before a blank screen just days before the paper’s due date. Yikes! If you think that working under stress is just how you work, then as you know from reading the existentialists, this is bad faith. One learns to do by doing.

A) Mark your calendar!

1) Due date for rough draft (optional but encouraged): any time before the end of Monday, 3/15.

2) Final draft is due before the end of Monday, 5/3.

3) Submit your paper via iCollege:

a) For the rough draft, the word doc must be saved as: ROUGH DRAFT YOUR NAME (this is for my own house-keeping purposes;
substitutes will not be accepted
).

b) Title the email subject line: ROUGH DRAFT

c) For the final draft, save it as: FINAL PAPER YOUR NAME (
substitutes will not be accepted
).

d) Title the email subject line: FINAL PAPER.

B) General guidelines for Argument Analysis Paper—see below for specific details.

1) Calling upon any philosophy that we have read and discussed together this semester, write a paper critically analyzing at least one philosophical issue & argument from one of our readings.

a) If you think you know what you want to write on, please let me know. Topics must pass my approval.

b) I will also offer some topics you can write on, if you choose (see the very end of this document).

C) There are basically 4 steps to the argument analysis paper: 1) lay out the argument, 2) raise an objection to the argument, 3) see if the objection can be overcome, 4) conclude with your thesis (the result of your analysis)

* As we read and analyze Singer’s and others’ arguments try to note these three steps to help you see what is expected of you here.

In order to earn full credit your paper must:

1) STEP ONE: Lay out the author’s argument. First and foremost, demonstrate that you understand the argument of the author under study (See Grading Rubric on last page below).

This is the most important thing for your paper, since the strength of your analysis depends on whether or not you understand and fairly present the argument. If you don’t have the argument, then you cannot analyze it.

a) Avoid the straw man fallacy in your analysis by practicing the principle of charity. That is, without putting words into the author’s mouth, you should offer the strongest, fairest, most charitable representation of the argument; give the author the benefit of the doubt.

b) Then, once you are done doing this, and not a second before, you can and should raise at least one critical objection to the argument (see step 2 below). Keeping these two tasks separate (charitably representing the argument and then critiquing it) will also help the clarity of your thinking and the clear organization of the paper.

2) STEP TWO: raise an objection. That is, take a critical stance on the argument by raising an objection to one, some, or all of the reasons (premises) it offers in support of its conclusion.

a) To be clear, do not commit a red herring fallacy, by raising issues that are not directly related to the argument that you just took the time to develop, and articulate in the first part of your analysis.

b) Note that you must raise an objection, even if you absolutely agree with the author’s argument; in which case you’ll need to use your imagination to consider how you might be mistaken, and how others might possibly see things differently than yourself.

3) STEP THREE: try to overcome the objection you raised.

a) If you can raise an objection to the argument, and show how it can be overcome or how we can change the argument a bit to fix the problem, then you will have provided further support for the argument’s conclusion.

b)
This will be your thesis
: the argument is sound or inductively strong, or it has a small problem but is salvageable provided we change or qualify a certain premise, etc.

c) On the other hand, if you try your best but cannot overcome the objection, then you will have provided reasons for doubting the strength of the argument.

d) Then,
this will be your thesis:

because of objection x the argument is weak and unsalvageable, etc.

4) STEP FOUR: conclude by briefly summarizing your analysis and thesis.

D) Technical Requirements, Citations, Etc:

1) Present a clear, well cited and well supported position.

a) Grammatical mistakes, spelling errors, etc. must be kept to a minimum.

b) Paper length: 1,000-1,200 words (or 3-4 pages double-spaced with 1” margins, 11-12 font). My “Sample Paper” below is 1260 words, not including the “Works Cited.”

c) Citations: for quotations, paraphrases, or references to any idea that is not your own, etc. use “in-text citations.” That is, follow the MLA format for quotations and citations, or simply follow the example of how I’ve been citing in “My Notes,” or in the “Sample Paper” at the end of this document.

d) Include a “Works Cited” or “List of Works” page at the end of your paper.

2) Other Details:

a) Include a title that expresses or at least hints at your thesis

b) Italicize all titles of texts, articles, etc. (but do not italicize your own title)

c) Write your name, date, and course title (all single spaced) at the top of your first page only.

d) Include page #’s for your paper (do not include your name with each page #).

e) Do not include a cover page

f) Double-check that you’ve satisfied all of the above demands.

E) Organizational Requirements—Provide Clear Signal Phrases & Signposts

1) Introduction Paragraph: The first paragraph should serve as the introduction in which you let the reader know what they will read in your paper. That is, like the title of the paper, the first paragraph serves as a sort of advertisement for what the reader will get should they continue reading. Be sure to deliver in the paper what you promise in this first paragraph, and only promise in this paragraph what you deliver in your paper.

a) Again, the first paragraph (and even the title) of your paper should briefly indicate your thesis; that is, the results of the critical analysis that you develop in the body of the paper. In short, is it or is it not a good argument? Your answer to this is your thesis. Determining this is your main goal and should be noted briefly at the very beginning of your paper.

b) In the first paragraph you’ll also need to mention three things: author’s full name, title (in italics) of his or her work under consideration, and their thesis (conclusion of their argument under analysis). I’d like to see this in the first sentence. For example:

In the following paper, I analyze Peter Singer’s supporting argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, for his conclusion that it is our moral duty to prevent children on the other side of the world from starving to death, provided that doing so does not require us to sacrifice anything “morally comparable” (Singer, par. 6). While Singer provides some important points to support this conclusion, there is something problematic it seems regarding his understanding of the cause of famine. However, if we revise Singer’s argument to address the real cause of child starvation and death, namely, oppressive and exploitive social structures, then I think one can rightly accept his conclusion. To make this clear, I will first offer Singer’s original argument, and then raise my objection regarding the cause of famine. Finally, I will show how that objection can be met in such a way that strengthens Singer’s view.

c) Note that after the first mention of the author’s full name you need and ought to mention only the last name.

d) Also note that here you should briefly mention the objection you will raise (or at least that you intend to raise an objection) and whether or not it can be overcome.

e) Note that it’s enough just to wave your hand at these points; nothing needs to be developed here in any depth or detail. The introduction paragraph is merely an advertisement for your analysis and not the analysis itself. That comes next.

f) I suggest that you provide a skeleton of these points in your intro when you first begin writing. After you have done the footwork of writing the paper, you can return to the intro and fill in the blanks.

2) STEP ONE (after Intro)—Paper’s Body:

a) You should begin doing the first of the four steps of your analysis (see note C.1 above) by the second paragraph of the paper in which the paper’s body begins.

b) Here, you should layout the argument by first clearly noting, again, its thesis (its conclusion) and the first of its supporting reasons (premises), implicit assumptions, etc., then use the rest of the paragraph to unpack and clarify how this premise leads to and supports the author’s conclusion. Next, start a new paragraph and do the same for the second supporting premise, then the third and so on. Again, each time you introduce a new idea/supporting premise you will typically begin a new paragraph—DO NOT mention anything that is not directly relevant to the support for argument’s conclusion, just stick to the argument under analysis.

c) In other words, when you write, be the Snake and not the Bunny: Your task is to leave a clear line in the sand, to offer a clear and continuous line of thought between the premises and the conclusion. Each sentence should express and/or develop the relevance of each supporting premise for the argument’s conclusion; and each sentence should clearly connect with the points of the preceding and subsequent sentences. When proof reading your paper ask yourself: Is my writing drawing this line and making the continuous connections that clearly lead to the conclusion? Good critical thinking is all (or mostly) about the connections, folks! We, of course, also need big ideals that are worth connecting. Critical skills and big ideals make the tried-and-true recipe for a life worth living!

d) The Bunny: Avoid hopping from point to point like a bunny. This is not a report that this person said this and then they said that, and then, they said… Make the connections clear, step by step, from premise 1 to the conclusion.

e) Again, generally, as a rule of thumb: each key supporting premise deserves its own paragraph.

f) Again, the first sentence of each paragraph should express (SIGNPOST) a clear thesis statement, which the rest of the paragraph will unpack. For example:

Singer offers the following argument in support of his conclusion that it is our moral duty for people of affluent countries to provide care and to prevent famine in third world countries.

Singer first states that suffering or dying from “a lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad” (Singer, par. 5).

Singer recognizes that if one disagrees with this first supporting claim, then one will not be persuaded to accept his conclusion (par. 5). However, Singer rightly argues, I think, that most everyone can agree that suffering and dying from starvation is bad.

Second, Singer supports his conclusion with his second claim that if we can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something morally comparable, then we ought to (Singer, par. 6). Here the evil effect is losing our money to famine relief organizations, while the proportionate good that justifies this risk is preventing children from suffering and dying from starvation…….

Third, Singer offers the drowning child analogy to help support his second claim, and thus his conclusion. That is, Singer argues that if one were to find a child drowning in shallow water and were able to save it, then one would have a clear moral obligation to do so; unless, of course, this required sacrificing something morally comparable, such as one’s own life or the life of one’s own child (Singer, pars. 6-9). While many of us in affluent countries agree that if we can save the drowning child then we ought to, Singer’s point is that every time we make the choice of buying trivial consumer goods rather than giving that money to famine relief funds, we fail to save the drowning child (Singer, pars. 1). Since refusing to save the child because it would mean getting one’s shoes or clothes muddy (or by analogy, not buying another new pair of shoes, etc.) does not count as something morally comparable. Thus, Singer concludes, we in affluent countries have a moral obligation to save children on the other side of the world from starving to death every day.

f) Note my signposting and thesis statements for each paragraph, my using the paragraph to unpack the thesis statement, and citations:

Singer first states that suffering or dying from “a lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad” (Singer, par. 5).

Second, Singer supports his conclusion with his second claim that if we can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something morally comparable, then we ought to (Singer, par. 6).

3) STEP TWO—Paper’s Objection Section:

a) Again, in fulfilling criterion C.1 (see above) you should withhold making any critical comments on the author’s argument. Again, at this point in the paper, you should offer a “charitable reading,” meaning that you should do everything you can to make the author’s argument as persuasive, plausible, and reasonable as possible (again, without adding anything that is not implicit in the author’s view).

b) Here as elsewhere, begin a new paragraph to mark (SIGNPOST) that you are raising an objection. Mention this as the thesis statement for this paragraph; and, as always, use the remainder of the paragraph to unpack and develop the thesis statement. For example:

In objection to Singer’s view, one might worry that, even if one has the ability and thus the duty to prevent a child from starving to death, donating one’s money is not the correct solution. Continuing with Singer’s argument by analogy, this objection stems from the question which we must ask: Why is it that every day 10,000 children starve to death (drown) in the first place? [footnoteRef:1] Is it merely because the people of affluent countries have spent so much on trivial consumer products rather than choosing to spend their money ‘morally’ (Singer, par. 29)? Or is there a deeper and more insidious cause that, insofar as Singer’s main principle is correct, it is our duty to address, so as to prevent the unnecessary deaths of millions of children each year from starvation, a lack of shelter, or medical care? [1: The United Nations, for instance, reports that 25,000 people (10,00 of which are children) die every day due to hunger related causes: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day]

As Marxist philosophers such as Oscar Wilde and, following Wilde, Slavoj Zizek argue, the cause of poverty is not simply the consumption of consumer trivia in affluent nations. Rather, the central cause is the capitalist system of private property. If one possesses private property, such as capital, land, and the means of production (such as factories), then one can pay workers a low wage while selling the product the worker makes for a higher price. This is one of the central ways in which capital is accumulated, following the capitalist’s mantra of maximizing profits and minimizing costs. However, if one lacks private property and capital to invest, then one will have only his or her labor to sell in order to gain the basic necessities of life. But, again, if the capitalist goal of maximizing profits and minimizing losses is to be realized, then the value of the worker’s labor must always have less value than the product of one’s labor. Thus, when we begin with private property, we end with the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and poverty, famine, and death for the many. The solution then is not merely to give to famine relief, though we ought to do this as well. Rather the solution, according to Wilde and Zizek, ultimately, and morally, obliges us to attempt to “reconstruct society in such a way that poverty is impossible” (Zizek, 6:20).[footnoteRef:2] [2:

]

c) Note that while you should and must use in-text citations, you can also add footnotes to provide further support for your analysis, or to provide a brief side-note to expand, or to qualify claims you make in the actual body of your paper. To insert a footnote, click “References” in your tool bar, click the diagonal arrow in the lower right corner, and follow the prompts.

4) STEP THREE—Respond to the objection

a) Again, begin a new paragraph to mark (SIGNPOST) that you are now responding to the objection. Mention this as the thesis statement for this paragraph; use the remainder of the paragraph to unpack the thesis statement. For example:

In response to this objection, Singer might salvage his argument by changing his solution to include, in addition to donating to famine relief, this attempt to reconstruct society as part of our moral obligation. If donating private property (one’s money) only exacerbates what Singer takes to be self-evidently bad, namely, suffering and dying from starvation, and there is an alternative solution that attempts to change the system (the cause of suffering and death) itself, then this solution will arguably have fewer evil effects than sustaining the system (Zizek, 6:00-7:00). Moreover, so long as protesting and changing the exploitative character of capitalist socio-economic structures does not require us to sacrifice something morally comparable, then, following Singer’s argument, we ought, morally, to do so. To be sure, since Singer’s conclusion already requires us to stop investing in trivial consumer goods, and the capital and power this produces and sustains, Singer would appear amenable to changing his position to meet my objection.

5) STEP FOUR—in the last paragraph summarize your analysis and evaluation of the argument. For example:

In conclusion, while Singer argues that it is the moral obligation of those living in affluent countries to donate to famine relief funds, I argue that this solution misunderstands and so fails to address the deeper cause of the problem, namely the institution of private property. By only requiring the moral obligation to donate one’s private property it is likely that one will only make problems worse by “keeping the poor alive” under the same institutional conditions and thus prolonging their suffering (Zizek, 6:00-6:20). As Zizek puts it, “It is immoral to use private property to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property” (Zizek, 6:55). However, I argue that we can salvage Singer’s solution by recognizing this deeper cause of poverty and famine. To be sure, if Singer is correct, then we ought to donate to famine relief rather than buying trivial consumer goods. The point, however, is that this is not enough, and Singer’s argument does not go far enough. If starving to death is bad and we can prevent it from happening, without sacrificing something morally comparable, then we also have the moral obligation to change the system of private property that results in the poverty and famine for the many in the first place.

Don’t forget to return to the intro paragraph to fill in the blanks, promise exactly what you offer in your finished paper. Email me if you have any questions at all. Listen to the voice of reason: Do a little writing every day. Don’t wait ‘til the last minute!!!

* * *

Grading Rubric

I. Quality of Writing—20%.

The creation of top-quality writing is usually connected with the student’s past reading habits (especially material that works with ideas), the degree to which one is struck by an idea that one sees as needing further development, and the capacity one has for discerning the logical connections and implications of ideas.

[A] Your presentation was excellent. It was sophisticated, well organized, mature, forceful, and clear. This is a polished piece of work.

[B] The essay reflects good, college-level quality. The presentation of ideas, force of writing, clarity, transitions and flow indicate competence and the basic knowledge necessary for understanding and working with the relevant ideas of the text(s).

[C] You’ve done a reasonable job. However, the pieces don’t fit smoothly together, and the work doesn’t possess as much sophistication as it might.

[D] The essay is marginally acceptable. In matters of composition—style, organization, clarity, sophistication, etc.—the essay represents less than average abilities.

[F] There are difficulties in your writing which need attention if you hope to do well in classes that require writing.

Remarks/Tips

[ ] The “noise” in the essay is distracting to be read. Noise means compositional elements including the following: punctuation, possessives, verb agreement, misspelled words, incorrect pronoun use, incomplete sentences, and so on. The university provides writing services that you should use to improve your basic compositional skills.

[ ] There is incidental “noise” in the essay, the correction of which requires a more careful proof-reading. You can fix the problem yourself.

[ ] Work on developing systematic arguments.

[ ] Basic compositional techniques like transitions between paragraphs, paragraph focus, sound sentence structure, clear sentences that don’t attempt to say too much at once, will improve the overall effort.

[ ] Think in simple sentences as a beginning point in the improvement of your writing.

[ ] The work drifts or wanders around. Points don’t follow from one another; ideas that belong together in the discussion aren’t placed together.

[ ] You copied or paraphrased without indicating that this was what you were doing. This practice is absolutely forbidden in writing. You must always use quotation marks and references!!!

II. Demonstrating your understanding of the material—40%

(A) [ ] You use the text to excellent advantage in your own work.

[ ] You’ve provided clear summaries of the ideas to which you appeal.

[ ] You interpret the material in insightful ways.

[ ] The material you develop nicely sets up the work for analysis.

[ ] You use the author’s ideas in a sophisticated way.

[ ] You understand how the arguments in the text are to be used for analysis.

[ ] The context of your discussion is clearly developed and lucidly presented.

(B) [ ] You’ve picked text(s) that are suitable to the problem(s) you set.

[ ] You recognize the relevant implications of the author’s ideas.

[ ] You report the text in a competent way.

[ ] You are sensitive to the issues involved in the topic.

[ ] You work with relevant passages.

[ ] You adequately summarize the material or quotations you use.

[ ] You provide context for seeing why there is a problem to discuss.

(C) [ ] You grasp more or less what is going on in the text(s).

[ ] You are unclear or uncertain what is going on in the text.

[ ] The reading plays an uncertain role in your interpretation of the topic.

[ ] You don’t see the implications of the principle(s) with which you’re working.

[ ] You ignore or misunderstand important aspects of the author’s argument.

[ ] The essay is by and large merely a collection of quotations.

[ ] You explain some of the text but don’t connect the explanation with the test question.

(D) [ ] You attribute points or views to the author that s/he does not hold.

[ ] You did not understand the material of the text(s).

[ ] You provide no clear reference to the relevant ideas of the text(s).

[ ] This work shows little sensitivity to the issues, analyses, or ideas developed in the text or class, and which are to be developed in the essay.

(F) [ ] From what you write, it appears that you did not read the text or come to class (even if in fact you did).

[ ] The work you have put forth here is unacceptable. It shows no sensitivity to the problems, analyses, issues, or ideas with which we are here concerned.

III. Analysis of reasoning and argumentation—40%

(A) [ ] You developed and analyzed the material in a careful and thorough way.

[ ] You have done an excellent job of dealing with the exam question.

[ ] You understand what is involved in developing an argument.

[ ] Your points are well-reasoned and have a direct bearing on your conclusion.

[ ] You develop a challenging analysis of this topic.

(B) [ ] You developed a defensible line of reasoning to support your thesis.

[ ] You are familiar with the analytical issues raised in the course.

[ ] You adequately report the arguments of the author(s) with whom you’re working.

[ ] Your analysis is well done, but further work is needed.

(C) [ ] Your work promises good analytic ability, but the goal is not yet attained.

[ ] Your argument is sketchy. It needs to be expanded and strengthened.

[ ] You repeat what you have understood in class without addressing the issue at hand.

[ ] You have difficulty following the idea’s implications.

[ ] There is little analysis of the ideas under investigation.

[ ] You complain something is wrong but don’t show the reader why.

[ ] You reject or agree with the author’s argument but fail to explain why.

[ ] The grounds on which you justify your position are insufficiently supported.

[ ] You rely on feelings or intuitions rather than argumentation.

[ ] You present an opinion rather than develop an argument.

(D) [ ] You have difficulty knowing how to work with ideas or seeing how they are connected to each other.

[ ] You don’t understand how ideas have implications that make them weak or powerful.

[ ] Clear thinking and reasoning may be beyond the work you are capable of doing at present.

(F) [ ] The work fails in all respects as an instance of reasoning.

SAMPLE PAPER IN FULL

Shoni Rancher

May 3rd, 2021

PHIL 2010

Marxism and the Morality of Peter Singer’s Famine Relief

In the following paper, I analyze Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, for his conclusion that, it is our moral duty to prevent children on the other side of the world from starving to death, provided that doing so does not require us to sacrifice anything “morally comparable” (Singer, par. 6). While Singer provides some important points to support this conclusion, there is something problematic it seems regarding his understanding of the cause of famine. However, if we revise Singer’s argument to address the real cause of child starvation, namely, oppressive and exploitive social structures, then I think one can rightly accept his conclusion. To make this clear, I will first offer Singer’s original argument. I will then raise my objection regarding the cause of famine. Finally, I will show how that objection can be met in such a way that strengthens Singer’s view.

Singer offers the following argument in support of his conclusion that it is our moral duty for people of affluent countries to provide care and to prevent famine in third world countries. Singer first states that suffering or dying from “a lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad” (Singer, par. 5). Singer recognizes that if one disagrees with this first supporting claim, then one will not be persuaded to accept his conclusion (par. 5). However, Singer rightly argues, I think, that most everyone can agree that suffering and dying from starvation is bad.

Second, Singer supports his conclusion with his second claim that if we can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something morally comparable, then we ought to (Singer, par. 6). Here the evil effect is losing our money to famine relief organizations, while the proportionate good that justifies this risk is preventing children from suffering and dying from starvation…….
Third, Singer offers the drowning child analogy to help support his second claim, and thus his conclusion. That is, Singer argues that if one were to find a child drowning in shallow water and were able to save it, then one would have a clear moral obligation to do so; unless, of course, this required sacrificing something morally comparable, such as one’s own life or the life of one’s own child (Singer, pars. 6-9). While many of us in affluent countries agree that if we can save the drowning child then we ought to, Singer’s point is that every time we make the choice of buying trivial consumer goods rather than giving that money to famine relief funds, we fail to save the drowning child (Singer, pars. 1). Since refusing to save the child because it would mean getting one’s shoes or clothes muddy (or by analogy, not buying another new pair of shoes, etc.) does not count as something morally comparable. Thus, Singer concludes, we in affluent countries have a moral obligation to save children on the other side of the world from starving to death every day.

In objection to Singer’s view, one might worry that, even if one has the ability and thus the duty to prevent a child from starving to death, donating one’s money is not the correct solution. Continuing with Singer’s argument by analogy, this objection stems from the question which we must ask: Why is it that every day 10,000 children starve to death (drown) in the first place?[footnoteRef:3] Is it merely because the people of affluent countries have spent so much on trivial consumer products rather than choosing to spend their money ‘morally’ (Singer, par. 29)? Or is there a deeper and more insidious cause that, insofar as Singer’s main principle is correct, it is our duty to address, so as to prevent the unnecessary deaths of millions of children each year from starvation, a lack of shelter, or medical care? [3: The United Nations, for instance, reports that 25,000 people (10,00 of which are children) die every day due to hunger related causes: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day]

As Marxist philosophers such as Oscar Wilde and, following Wilde, Slavoj Zizek argue, the cause of poverty is not simply the consumption of consumer trivia in affluent nations. Rather, the central cause is the capitalist system of private property. If one possesses private property, such as capital, land, and the means of production (such as factories), then one can pay workers a low wage while selling the product the worker makes for a higher price. This is one of the central ways in which capital is accumulated, following the capitalist’s mantra of maximizing profits and minimizing costs. However, if one lacks private property and capital to invest, then one will have only his or her labor to sell in order to gain the basic necessities of life. But, again, if the capitalist goal of maximizing profits and minimizing losses is to be realized, then the value of the worker’s labor must always have less value than the product of one’s labor. Thus, when we begin with private property, we end with the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and poverty, famine, and death for the many. The solution then is not merely to give to famine relief, though we ought to do this as well. Rather the solution, according to Wilde and Zizek, ultimately, and morally, obliges us to attempt to “reconstruct society in such a way that poverty is impossible” (Zizek, 6:20).[footnoteRef:4] [4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
]

In response to this objection, Singer might salvage his argument by changing his solution to include, in addition to donating to famine relief, this attempt to reconstruct society as part of our moral obligation. If donating private property (one’s money) only exacerbates what Singer takes to be self-evidently bad, namely, suffering and dying from starvation, and there is an alternative solution that attempts to change the system (the cause of suffering and death) itself, then this solution will arguably have fewer evil effects than sustaining the system (Zizek, 6:00-7:00). Moreover, so long as protesting and changing the exploitative character of capitalist socio-economic structures does not require us to sacrifice something morally comparable, then, following Singer’s argument, we ought, morally, to do so. To be sure, since Singer’s conclusion already requires us to stop investing in trivial consumer goods, and the capital and power this produces and sustains, Singer would appear amenable to changing his position to meet my objection.
In conclusion, while Singer argues that it is the moral obligation of those living in affluent countries to donate to famine relief funds, I argue that this solution misunderstands and so fails to address the deeper cause of the problem, namely the institution of private property. By only requiring the moral obligation to donate one’s private property it is likely that one will only make problems worse by “keeping the poor alive” under the same institutional conditions and thus prolonging their suffering (Zizek, 6:00-6:20). As Zizek puts it, “It is immoral to use private property to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property” (Zizek, 6:55). However, I argue that we can salvage Singer’s solution by recognizing this deeper cause of poverty and famine. To be sure, if Singer is correct, then we ought to donate to famine relief rather than buying trivial consumer goods. The point, however, is that this is not enough, and Singer’s argument does not go far enough. If starving to death is bad and we can prevent it from happening, without sacrificing something morally comparable, then we also have the moral obligation to change the system of private property that results in the poverty and famine for the many in the first place.

(Note that the above paper clocked in at four pages, and just under 1,300 words.)

WORKS CITED

Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1:3, pp. 229-243.

Zizek, Slavoj. 2010. “RSA ANIMATE: First as Tragedy, Then as Farce” Youtube, July 28, 00:00-10:56.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g. Accessed November 6, 2016.

PAPER TOPIC SUGGESTIONS:

1.

In the “Discussion on Making All Things Equal,” Chuang-Tzu argues that once one understands the “Way,” then one can respond “endlessly” to life. Part of this understanding requires us to see life as a play of interdependent opposites in a never-ending cycle of change (pp. 39-40).

In light of this view of life, and claims like: “There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not acceptable,” can Chuang-Tzu’s philosophy offer a robust response to injustice, such as racism, sexism, wealth inequality, tyranny, etc., so as to right the wrongs (p. 40)?

Or, does Chuang-Tzu’s philosophy instead require that we understand right and wrong as interdependent, and thus, that we passively accept such injustice, and simply “let it be” (p. 38)?

2. In the “Discussion on Making All Things Equal,” Chuang-Tzu argues that “A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so” (p. 40), which expresses the philosophical view known as “nominalism.”

As I remarked in “My Notes,” the philosophical idea of nominalism is the view that ideas are simply names, that is, human social constructions without a corresponding non-human reality. For instance, what we call a tree, or morally acceptable, etc. does not reveal reality, since these are only names we use, and by using them, like a path used in a forest, we carve out and construct a “reality” for ourselves, rather than discover reality.

In the Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir seems sympathetic to nominalism to a point. However, Beauvoir argues that: “To decline to accept such notions as the eternal feminine, the black soul, the Jewish character, is not to deny that Jews, Negroes, [and] women exist today” (p. xx, par. 3). Provide an analysis of Beauvoir’s argument against and critique of nominalism, such that she sees it leading not to liberation, but instead towards a “flight from reality” and non-liberation (p. xx, par. 3)?

3. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates offers a ship analogy argument to critique democracy as a political regime (that is, as a method for organizing a community). Socrates’ argument concludes that, while democracies have the most freedom for its citizens’ pursuits of happiness, and, consequently, the greatest tolerance of different life projects (and desires), such freedom and rule of desire does not make for a very stable society, and the ship and its crew do not get home safely (p. 168/line 488; pp. 235-40/lines 557a-562a).

Provide an analysis of Socrates’ ship analogy argument against democracy.

As a possible of objection to Plato’s challenge to democracy, consider the following film, Knock Down the House, which documents common folk (including A.O.C.) fighting and winning to gain a political voice in our “democracy,” and why, contrary to Plato’s view, this might be a good thing.

4. Analyze the existentialist’s account of what it means to exist (as a man, woman, etc.) as the basis for Fanon’s diagnosis and critique of the color problem as a dual-narcissism; or Beauvoir’s critique of male dominance. This would mark the first and most important step of the assignment; and should focus on material from the relevant texts (and not anecdotal evidence–just to be clear). 

Second step, raise an objection to this existentialist account and Fanon’s or Beauvoir’s critique.

Third step, offer a response to that critique.

Step four, conclude with your thesis over whether or not the existentialist’s account of what it means to exist holds up under scrutiny. 

Okay, folks, these are just some suggestion, and as the semester continues, I’m confident that I’ll suggest some more paper topics during our discussions together. If you have something you are interested in writing on, then make sure you get my approval before you begin writing.

2