I am going to attach the rubric below. It is 4 prompts, so an essay needs to be written for all 4. It is for my ethics class.

PHIL 2030 Introduction to Ethics

Essay questions

F

irst half of semester

Each essay is to be written from the perspective of a judge who is given sole authority to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Your introduction should present the charges, the issues raised by each side, and a clear thesis stating your decision. Your decision should be ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.

Formal requirements:

Essays should be 3-4 pages (1000-1200 words) double-spaced, 12 pt. font with one inch margins. Pages should be numbered, with a title page that is not numbered. There should be no footnotes.

A

ny notes should be endnotes. If you cite sources, you may use any established style guide, but philosophers use

C

hicago style. Here is a quick on-line reference for Chicago style citations.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

1. Cultural Relativism

Render a verdict in the trial of Fauziya Kassindja. Does Issakah Ibrahim have the moral right to force her to return to Togo to undergo genital cutting and then marry him?

B

ackground:

In 1997, Fauziya Kassindja, a young woman from the nation of Togo in West Africa, tried to enter the United States illegally. In accordance with the norms of her own conservative Muslim subculture in Togo, she had been forced to marry against her will and was going to be forced to undergo female genital cutting, a procedure in which her clitoris and part of her labia would have been removed under unsanitary conditions in order to prevent her from enjoying sexual pleasure and thus ensuring that she would be sexually faithful to her husband. (For more information, see the following WHO site:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

). With the help of her mother Amaray and older sister, she escaped and fled to the United States.

In this (fictional) trial, Issakah Ibrahim, Fauziya’s legal husband, has traveled to the United States to retrieve Fauziya from America because she has broken the laws and customs of Togo. He argues that the US does not have the moral right to violate the laws of Togo which (at the time of these events) gave him to right to force her to undergo the procedure. Moreover, he argues that the cultural norms of his (and Fauziya’s) sect of Islam required that she submit to her husband.

Fauziya argues that she has a right to control of her own body and cannot be forced to suffer harm without her consent. Moreover, these rights are universal and do not depend on the laws of any nation or the norms of any culture. Ibrahim violates universal human rights in attempting assault and spousal abuse of Fauziya Kassindja.

As judge, you must decide which view about cultural relativism is correct based on the reasons discussed in the material for this course. You may do your own research about the case to further develop the details in your essay, but you are not required to do so. You can find Fauziya guilty and send her back with Ibrahim, or you can find Ibrahim guilty of violations of Fauziya’s rights and convict him, or you can release both of them with no penalty, Fauziya to the United States and Ibrahim to Togo.

In the essay:

Take the perspective of a judge in a trial in a moral court, an imaginary court in which the judge decides on the basis of the moral rightness or wrongness of the action. Briefly explain the case of Fauziya Kassindja and the practice of Female Genital Cutting (also called, mutilation or excision) so that you can spend sufficient time on the arguments for and against cultural relativism.

For this essay, you must do the following. (1) State your thesis clearly. (2) Present and explain each view on cultural relativism and moral objectivity. (3) Present and explain the best arguments for each position. (4) For your preferred response, you must give convincing responses to the arguments against your position.

2. Divine Command Theory

Render a verdict in the trial of Louise Antony on the charge of defamation of character against God for claiming God is a tyrant for making right and wrong depend on God’s commands. Is Antony’s claim correct or do moral right and wrong depend on God’s commands?

Background:

Louise Antony has published an opinion column in the New York Times, and God is displeased with her argument. God need not be the figure alluded to in various religions but is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good (although what counts as good depends on the truth or falsity of Divine Command Theory) creator and designer of the universe. God comes to earth to sue her for defamation of character. Antony claims that if Divine Command Theory is true, God is like a tyrant and “there could be no way in which God was deserving of praise or tribute” (p. 4). God contends that morality does depend on God’s commands, and that the suggestion that God would be a tyrant if this were the case is both false and harms God’s reputation among mortals. Louise Antony does not, in this instance, contend that God does not exist. Instead, she argues that even if God does exist (as God does in this scenario), morality does not depend on God’s commands. Indeed, God specifically commands that Antony be fined for her claims.

In the essay:

Take the perspective of a judge in a trial in a moral court, an imaginary court in which the judge decides on the basis of the moral rightness or wrongness of the action. an argument for it. Explain Louise Antony’s claim that God on the divine command theory is a tyrant. You must present an argument for divine command theory (preferably Robert Adams’s argument, but another possibility is the argument from God’s creation) and provide a critique and your own evaluation of this argument. You must present Antony’s argument against divine command theory and provide a critique and your own evaluation of this argument.

For this essay, you must do the following. (1) State your thesis clearly. (2) Present and explain each position on the debate (each answer to the Euthyphro question). (3) Present and explain the best arguments for each position. (4) For your preferred response, you must give convincing responses to the arguments against your position.

3. Torturer/Murderer on Trial: Ethical theory:

Render a verdict in the trial of J. Bauer on the charges of murder and crimes against humanity for torturing a terrorist, his/her innocent relatives, and killing an innocent child of the terrorist. Were J. Bauer’s actions morally acceptable or not?

Background:

Jack Bauer is a high-ranking officer in a United States top secret Counterterrorism Unit (CTU). Bauer is stationed in New York City when his subordinates capture someone (al-Yemeni, an expatriate from Yemen who now lives in New York City) they believe to be placing bombs around the city. They discover al-Yemeni with two homemade bombs in a bag; these bombs are on timers set to explode in one hour when he/she is captured. When captured, al-Yemeni brags about placing other bombs throughout the city set to explode at the same time to cause maximum damage and panic. Bauer receives instructions to follow American criminal law in interrogating al-Yemeni. American criminal law allows for al-Yemeni and those close to him/her to be held as “material witnesses” without receiving Miranda rights. Thus, Bauer is given permission to interrogate the prisoner and his family without a lawyer present, but Bauer is not given permission to torture or kill them. Bauer begins by following the legal guidelines for interrogating the prisoner and his family but has no success finding the location of the bombs. Al-Yemeni’s spouse and children are willing to talk but know nothing about any bombs. Al-Yemeni refuses to provide any information. So, Bauer’s interrogation appears to be fruitless until he resorts to extreme measures.

With only ½ hour left before the predicted explosion, Bauer turns to extreme measures (“enhanced interrogation techniques”) including physical violence and intimidation of al-Yemeni. Bauer breaks his fingers, waterboards him (a treatment also known as simulated drowning) and threatens him with a power drill. Bauer’s treatment of al-Yemeni is not successful; al-Yemeni remains confident that Bauer will not kill him since only the terrorist knows where the bombs are. Bauer then brings in the al-Yemeni’s wife and children, treats them in the same way he treated al-Yemeni (waterboarding them, breaking their fingers, threatening them with a power drill). The family begs al-Yemeni to tell Bauer what he wants to know, but al-Iraqi continues to resist. Finally with only a few minutes left, Bauer threatens to kill the children. Bauer places a power drill at the temple of al-Yemeni’s older child (a ten year old boy) and threatens his life. Al-Yemeni believes Bauer is a bluffing. Bauer kills the child with the power drill and then threatens the younger child (a four-year old girl). At this point al-Yemeni confesses the location of the other bombs. The bombs are successfully recovered without further harm. Had the bombs not been disarmed, they would have exploded in crowded city streets and in the subway killing dozens of people. No precise estimate of the number of total lives saved is possible, but a roughly accurate estimate is that about 50-100 people were saved by Bauer’s actions. Only al-Yemeni’s son was killed, and all of them were physically harmed and terrified by Bauer’s treatment. Al-Yemeni’s wife and children were innocent of any wrongdoing and had neither knowledge of nor ability to stop al-Yemeni’s bombing plan.

The Charge

J. Bauer is charged with crimes against humanity, specifically torture and first-degree murder. Bauer’s actions are clearly illegal according to the American criminal and international law, and so the case is to be tried in a moral court in which it is possible to argue that, while the actions were illegal, they were nonetheless justified because of Bauer’s need to save a large number of people. The judge then must decide not just whether Bauer’s actions violated American or international law but whether they were morally justified. If Bauer is found guilty, he will be punished with life in prison or even the death penalty, while if Bauer is found not guilty, he will be released with no punishment. Keep in mind that al-Yemeni is not on trial and has already been sentenced to life in prison for terrorism and attempted mass murder.

Al-Yemeni’s motivation:

Al-Yemeni’s reason for the bombing attack is to cause America to stop its policy of using airstrikes (including drones, also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or UAVs) on individuals in Muslim countries not actively engaged in hostilities with the United States. He believe that by retaliating against the United States for these strikes, he will cause the U.S. to stop using them either from fear of further retaliation or from a recognition of the harm airstrikes do to innocent civilians such as the ones al-Yemeni is attempting to kill. US airstrikes in the middle east kill approximately it is often reported that civilians unrelated to any attacks on the U.S. or its personnel are killed or injured by these strikes. If so, the logic of al-Yemeni’s attack is similar to the logic behind the US use of airstrikes. In both cases civilians are killed, and their deaths are either a known consequence of the airstrikes or a deliberate whereas, in the case of al-Yemeni, the death of innocent civilians is his deliberate intention. In either Bauer’s or al-Yemeni’s case, the logic of the action is that the death of innocent civilians is necessary for producing a greater good. In the case of the U.S., the death of civilians is necessary for the good of defeating enemies of the U.S. (al-Qaeda, ISIS); in al-Yemeni’s case, the death of civilians is seen as necessary to put an end to airstrikes which ultimately kill many more people than would be killed in al-Yemeni’s attack. In short, al-Yemeni may see himself as applying the U.S. government’s own reasoning, that it is acceptable to kill civilians in order to produce a greater good.

In your essay:

Take the perspective of a judge in a trial in a moral court, an imaginary court in which the judge decides on the basis of the moral rightness or wrongness of the action. Briefly explain the situation Bauer faced and the actions he took so that you can spend sufficient time on the arguments for and against the ethical theories. Since there is no question about whether Bauer took the actions described, your decision should focus on the possible moral justifications for them. You will need to defend one of the three ethical theories discussed in class—utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and virtue ethics—and show how that theory supports your verdict in the case.

For this essay, you must do the following. (1) State your thesis clearly. (2) Present and explain each ethical theory. (3) Present and explain one counterargument to each ethical theory (say, a counterexample). (4) For your preferred ethical theory, you must give a convincing response to that counterargument (or counterexample).

Additional sources on writing:

If you want additional help in writing your essay, you may check the following websites.

Jim Pryor’s “Guidelines for Writing a Philosophy Paper”:

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

Harvard College Writing Center’s “Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper”:

https://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/files/phildept/files/brief_guide_to_writing_philosophy_paper

Simon Fraser University’s “Writing a Philosophy Paper” by Peter Horban:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html

http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/AKind/Intro01s/writing.htm

https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/philosophy-paper

Proposed Outlines

The following are possible outlines for your essay on cultural relativism, divine command theory, or ethical theories. You need not follow these outlines, but you may find them helpful in structuring your arguments.

Essay topic #1: Cultural Relativism

· Set up the case:

· Describe the circumstances and what happened to Fauziya Kassindja.

· State the charges against Kassindja.

· Preview the reasons for your verdict.

· State your verdict.

Body paragraphs (not necessary exactly paragraph each below):

· State and explain cultural relativism.

· Explain how cultural relativism implies a specific verdict on the trial and how its falsity implies an opposite verdict.

Arguments for cultural relativism

· State the premises of argument.

· Explain how these premises are supposed to support cultural relativism.

· Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.

· This might be reasons to reject the argument or reasons given to support it against objections.

· Repeat with another argument if possible.

Arguments against cultural relativism

· State the premises of argument.

· Explain how these premises are supposed to count against cultural relativism.

· Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.
· This might be reasons to reject the argument or reasons given to support it against objections.
· Repeat with another argument if possible.

Conclusion:

· Restate your thesis

.

· Review the reasons you gave for your thesis.

· Summarize how you responded to the objection to your thesis.

Essay topic #2: Divine Command Theory

Introduction:

· Set up the case:

· Describe the circumstances and what Antony claimed.

· State the charges against Antony.

· Preview the reasons for your verdict.
· State your verdict.
Body paragraphs (not necessary exactly paragraph each below):

· State and explain the divine command theory.

· Explain how divine command theory implies a specific verdict on the trial and how its falsity implies an opposite verdict.

Arguments for divine command theory

· State the premises of argument.

· Explain how these premises are supposed to support divine command theory.

· Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.
· This might be reasons to reject the argument or reasons given to support it against objections.
· Repeat with another argument if possible.

Arguments against divine command theory

· State the premises of argument.

· Explain how these premises are supposed to count against divine command theory.

· Critique and evaluate those premises/that reasoning.
· This might be reasons to reject the argument or reasons given to support it against objections.
· Repeat with another argument if possible.
Conclusion:
· Restate your thesis.
· Review the reasons you gave for your thesis.
· Summarize how you responded to the objection to your thesis.

Essay topic #3: Ethical Theory

Introduction:
· Set up the case:

· Describe the circumstances and what Bauer did.

· State the charges against Bauer.

· Preview the reasons for your verdict.
· State your verdict.
Body paragraphs (not necessary exactly paragraph each below):

Ethical theory 1

· Describe the theory.

· Explain its consequences for Bauer’s action.

· Explain the problem with the theory.

· Present a counterexample or counterargument.

Ethical theory 2

· Describe the theory.
· Explain its consequences for Bauer’s action.
· Explain the problem with the theory.
· Present a counterexample or counterargument.

Ethical theory 3

· Describe the theory.
· Explain its consequences for Bauer’s action.
· Explain the problem with the theory.
· Present a counterexample or counterargument.

· Respond to the counterexample or counterargument.

Conclusion:
· Restate your thesis

· Review the reasons you gave against the alternatives.

· Summarize how you responded to the objection to your theory.

Judge’s Verdict (Essay)

Criteria of evaluation

20 pts.

Grading Rubric: Content

Plagiarism:

The penalty for plagiarism is failure of the course. It is very easy these days to find something on the internet that addresses any given topic, and students who are struggling with the course often are tempted into copying these resources. It is, however, easy to discover such plagiarism. In addition, students sometimes inadvertently plagiarize by quoting directly from the textbook or class readings without attribution. I do not want to discourage you from quoting your text or using outside resources, but in either case, you must cite the source and give the location in the source as accurately and completely as possible. If you use a website, you must include the organization and author name (if available), the web address and the date downloaded. Proper citation is essential to show that your claims are accurate.

If you quote directly from a source, you must put the quotation in quotation marks or use some other convention, such as setting the passage off in a separate, indented, single-spaced paragraph, to make it clear that you are directly quoting a source. Close paraphrasing—taking a sentence from a work and changing a word here or there—is still plagiarism if you do not cite the source and use one of the above conventions to make it clear that it is a close paraphrase. For example, changing the pronouns in a sentence (changing ‘you’ to ‘he’ throughout a quote) would still require you to use quotation marks and place the modified words in brackets. It does not matter to me what style you use to indicate your sources, but you must use some clear convention to indicate them.