Complete  instructions for the paper are found on the “Paper Instructions”  document (at the beginning of the home page) and the “On Writing an  Ethics Paper” powerpoint (same location).

Your paper MUST be a critical evaluation of an argument  (see instructions). Your paper must NOT be a “report” on an ethical  issue, or a “for-and-against” discussion of your topic (!!). This is  very important: your task is to demonstrate the critical thinking skills  that we are learning, and you are required to follow the (very  standard) format we have discussed in class, and that appears in the  instructions.

The topic for the paper AND the argument  MUST BE APPROVED by your professor before you write. For this first  paper, you may write about any ethical issue from the news, or your own  life or experience, or about the topics we have covered so far in class.  You may NOT write about topics that are covered later  in the course (that includes animal rights, sex and consent, harassment,  euthanasia, race and justice, and several others. If you want to write  about abortion, you may do so for the first paper, but your paper MUST  take into account the articles on abortion that we read in the last week  of February. CHECK with your professor if you are not sure – there are  no exceptions to these limits (simply because it makes no sense to write  a paper now on a topic which we will be discussing in more depth later  in the semester). Terrorism and torture ARE allowed for the first paper,  but be SURE that you have read those chapters before writing your  paper.

Keep in mind that your argument MUST contain an ethical theory, and an action to be evaluated, IN THE ANTECEDENT of the argument, which MUST be either modus ponens or modus tollens.

On Writing an Ethical Argument Evaluation Paper (PHIL 302)

Revised fall 2016

Before you begin writing, it is crucial to pick a subject, topic, or a specific argument that interests you. Your paper will be a critical evaluation of the soundness of an argument. If you already have an argument, then you can go on to the next step. If not, you may choose to discuss one from an author you have read, or you may formulate your own. In some courses, you may consider a case study for your paper. In that case you will formulate an argument that purports to defend a resolution to the case. You should note that it is not crucial that you pick an argument with which you agree. It is about equally difficult (or easy) to write a paper opposing an argument as it is to write one supporting it, so you should probably choose an argument that is interesting first.

Your paper will have seven parts:

I. Introduction

II. Position

III. Argument

IV. Justification

A. Validity

B. Definitions

C. Explanation and defense of premise one

D. Explanation and defense of premise two

V. Objections

A. Objection (explained and defended) to premise one

B. Objection (explained and defended) to premise two

VI. Answers to objections

A. Answer/rebuttal to objection to premise one (explain/defend)

B. Answer/rebuttal to objection to premise two (explain/defend)

VII. Conclusion

NOTE: PLEASE CLEARLY LABEL EACH SECTION OF YOUR PAPER USING THE MAIN HEADINGS LISTED HERE – see the Sample Papers

Introduction

For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument. Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve (or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.

Position

At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. Your paper is a critical evaluation of the argument that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett’s argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: “Bennett’s position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed.” This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.

Argument

Immediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else’s). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the conclusion. For example:

(1) If the teaching of values in schools will revive America’s flagging morality, then values should be taught in schools.

(2) The teaching of values in schools will revive America’s flagging morality.

(3) Therefore values should be taught in schools.

JustificationS

This is one of the three most important sections of your paper. It is also slightly more complicated than the rest. First, you should defend the validity of your argument. If your argument is an immediately recognizable form, you may say simply, “This argument is valid because it is in proper modus ponens (or modus tollens) form.” If it is valid, but does not follow any recognizable form, then you must explain briefly why the conclusion follows from the premises. Do not explain modus ponens or modus tollens.

Next, carefully define all of the terms that are of any significance in your argument. Although you should feel free to start with a dictionary, be careful to define the terms as the person who gives the argument seems to mean them. Keep in mind that “terms” can mean phrases as well as individual words. For example, in the argument above you may want to define “revive America’s flagging morality”.

The most important part of this section is the justification of the premises. Remember that you are trying to accomplish two things in this part. First, for each premise, you are trying to explain what, exactly, the premise means. Secondly, you are trying to show why an intelligent, thoughtful, well-meaning person might believe each premise to be true. To do the first, you will need to apply your definitions to the individual premises and carefully explain the author’s intent. To do the second, you will need to provide evidence, examples, and/or further argumentation. Do not imagine that simply repeating the premise using other terms or other words does anything to demonstrate its truth. Provide good reasons why someone should believe each premise. You may want to note that conditional premises generally require different sorts of reasons in their support than declarative sentences do.

Be SURE to justify each premise separately. Use headings (Justification of Premise 1, Justification of Premise 2) and make it clear in the text what you are doing in that section (“here is the justification of premise one). This will help the reader, and it will help keep you “on track” with what you are supposed to be doing.

It is crucial in this section to do the best possible job defending the argument. If you agree with the argument that almost goes without saying. But even if you disagree with the argument, this section is where you do full justice to the “other side’s” point of view. If you do a poor job justifying the argument, you will not earn the right to disagree with it, because you will have set up a “straw person” that is easy to knock over. If you provide solid, well-reasoned justification for your opponent’s argument and then demonstrate the errors of his or her reasoning, you will be able to pronounce the argument unsound for good reason. That is, after all, the point. It will not be enough to point out loudly, or with lots of words that all say the same thing, that you (or your opponent) are right or wrong. What matters is whether you can provide solid reasons, convincing evidence, and clear argumentation for your view.

The justification of a two premise argument will take at least four lengthy, thoughtful paragraphs (two for each premise). Check carefully to see that your justifications actually defend, and do not only explain, your premises.

Objections

In this section you will raise, explain and defend at least one objection to each premise (you should not object to the conclusion – showing one of the premises false shows that the argument does not prove the conclusion). Again, you must do this even if you completely agree with the argument. Life is such that almost no matter what your argument says, an intelligent, well-meaning opponent can raise good objections. Your conclusion will be much stronger if you consider those objections (you will answer them in Part VI). In any case, raise at least one good objection to each premise. Be sure to explain and defend your objections with the same thoroughness you used to justify the premises (that means a couple of thorough, clear, thoughtful paragraphs each). Be careful here: “being objectionable” is not the same as “objecting” to a premise. The point of an objection is to show that a particular premise is false. That is what your objections should say; then you must provide good reasons, evidence, and reasoning to back them up. Warning: do not object to the conclusion (and be careful when you are objecting to a conditional premise – the premise is not necessarily false if the consequent is false). That’s “table-pounding”, which doesn’t cut it in this course.

Be SURE to object to each premise separately. Use headings (Objection to Premise 1, Objection to Premise 2) and make it clear in the text what you are doing in that section (“here is the objection to premise one”; “here is an objection to Premise 2”). This will help the reader, and it will help keep you “on track” with what you are supposed to be doing.

Answers to Objections

In this section you will provide answers to each objection. Be careful here to show that the objections are false: DO NOT simply restate or reiterate your justifications. Again, you must explain why each objection is false, and then provide reasoning and evidence to back up your claims. This is required, again, whether you agree with the argument or not (do not imagine, for example, that William Bennett will simply throw up his hands at your objections to his argument and say, “Good Gosh! You’re right! How could I have missed that crucial point?” Nice fantasy, but a bit unlikely). It is important here to try, as best you can, to make your answers consistent with (or at least compatible with) your justifications. If, for example, you have given a utilitarian argument to justify euthanasia, it will not make a lot of sense to provide a Kantian answer to an objection. Answers, like justifications and objections, will normally take at least two paragraphs each.

Be SURE to answer (or rebut) each objection separately. Use headings (Answer to Objection to Premise 1, Answer to Objection to Premise 2) and make it clear in the text what you are doing in that section (“here is the answer (or rebuttal) to the objection to premise one”, etc.) This will help the reader, and it will help keep you “on track” with what you are supposed to be doing.

Conclusion

If you agree with the argument, your conclusion will simply be a summary of your paper to this point, along with any additional thoughts or comments you may have. It is not a good idea to add further justification or evidence at this point – put it in the body of the paper. If you disagree with the argument, you may add a few sentences here to show why the answers to your objections are incorrect, false, or wrong – these need not be paragraph length. But you will want to have the final word, and here’s your chance. Some people also like to add final comments here (some folks, for example, like to tell me how their thinking on the subject has grown and changed throughout the process of writing the paper). A paragraph or two is all that is needed here.

SOME NOTES

Be sure to write your paper for a broader audience than your philosophy professor. Assume that your reader is intelligent, witty, and well read. DO NOT assume that “he will know what I am talking about – he teaches this stuff”. I will grade you, in part, on how well your explanation of your subject and argument demonstrates your clear thinking about and understanding of the subject.

Some do’s and don’ts about the papers:

DO

DON’T

type your paper

cover pages

double-spaced

covers

notes [Author, p. 52], in text or footnote
right justification

reasonable margins (1 inch? maximum)
huge margins (top, bottom, or sides)

explain quotations

lengthy quotations

reasonable font and print size

large fonts, etc.

PROOFREAD your paper for grammar
imagine that one line on a page counts as a full page

PROOFREAD for spelling

triple-space or single-space

PROOFREAD for general sense

staple paper in upper left corner (not

needed electronically!)

On Writing an Ethics Paper 4

November 4th, 1999

The Battle of Deaths

Terminal illnesses can be some of the more painful medical conditions a person can contract. In an effort to prematurely end the pain and suffering of a person, the option of euthanasia can be presented. Within euthanasia there exists many classifications ranging from withdrawal of treatment to the ingestion of lethal substances. The problem stated is: Is euthanasia justified for a person with a painful, terminally ill illness? The thought of anyone associating euthanasia with a medical environment is enough to start some of the world’s largest controversies in moral, ethical and medical worlds alike.

Euthanasia, as stated by the American Medical Association, or AMA, is “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another.” (Rachels 593) The means of carrying out this ultimate end can be vastly different in nature and effect, and herein lies the controversy. Active euthanasia is the process of giving a lethal dose of a drug or using any other means to quickly terminate life, while passive euthanasia is just the cessation of treatment and letting natural causes kill. The argument lies in the justifications and ramifications for each option, as well as no euthanasia.

Position: Rachels’ argument is that doctors should use active euthanasia in situations wherever euthanasia is justified or used, such as a person with a terminal illness. I have expanded this argument to include a utilitarian perspective that includes the highest utility for all alternatives, although I may not necessarily agree with its conclusion.

Argument: The expanded argument being discussed is written as follows:

1) If, in cases of a person with a severely ill, helpless, and painful illness with no foreseeable cure, Active Euthanasia provides a higher utility than any available alternative, then in this case we ought to allow Active Euthanasia.

2) In cases of a person with a severely ill, helpless, and painful illness with no foreseeable cure, Active Euthanasia provides a higher utility than any available alternative.

3) In this case we ought to allow Active Euthanasia.

Validity and Definitions:

The above argument is valid one because it is presented in proper modus ponens form. To ease understanding of the argument, many of the terms and phrases need to be explained to show the greater meaning or extra information beyond a dictionary definition. For this argument a “severely ill, helpless and painful illness with no foreseeable cure” is defined as a terminal illness, nearing its end that causes great suffering for the person under examination with no aid available within the expected lifetime of the stated person. The AMA definition for euthanasia was given earlier as “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another.” (Rachels, 593) This can be expanded to include the means of termination to produce the two terms active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the termination of life with a process that would kill even a healthy person such as taking an excess of certain drugs, lethal injection, and poisons. Passive euthanasia is simply removing further treatment for a patient and letting the disease/illness kill him or her. When I speak of highest utility, I am referring to the theory of utilitarianism or the most pleasure or least pain situation, in this case since any alternative yields pain, be it in differing levels, the objective is to make the pain as small as possible. Utilitarianism, analyzing pleasure minus pain, uses this calculation for all alternate scenarios to choose the correct course of action. This is what is meant by “any available alternatives”. Finally “in this case” refers to any medical situation that fits the first definition of a severely ill, helpless, and painful illness.

Justification of Premise 1:

This argument was constructed using utilitarianism because the basis of utilitarianism is pleasure and pain instead of rights, or autonomous and free will. The ultimate goal with a terminal illness is to reverse or cure it, however since we do not have this option, the reduction of suffering is the goal that we are trying to seek. If we assume that active euthanasia provides the highest utility of any available alternatives then it is morally required to permit the action that allows the highest utility to be reached. In this case that action is active euthanasia and the highest utility is to end suffering by premature termination of life. The first premise is a conditional sentence, so as a result the object is not to prove the truth of active euthanasia providing the highest utility, but to show that any action that yields the highest utility of all situations, ought to be allowed by society.

Utilitarianism provides the best basis for a moral discussion of the subject of euthanasia, unless performed out of the wishes of a corrupt individual, because there is little question of the motive for cases of euthanasia since the goal is to end suffering. The best option must be done or else yield to a lower utility and therefor less happiness. The relationship between utility and action is already defined by utilitarianism and can not be separated without changing the entire philosophy. Nevertheless, besides only the theory of utilitarianism, society ought to pursue any alternative the will result in the most utility or happiness because that is what the sum of the interests of all people are. If society were to take a different course of action from that which yields the highest total utility, people would be less happy or have greater pain. The nature of sentient and non-sentient beings alike is to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, so to purposely turn away from the greatest pleasure is to go against instinct.

Justification of Premise 2:

The second premise, which states “In cases of a person with a severely ill, helpless, and painful illness with no foreseeable cure, Active Euthanasia provides a higher utility than any available alternative”, explains how active euthanasia is the best alternative, or option, for a terminal illness patient. One of the typical cases that fit the stated argument is a patient with throat cancer where no treatment can halt any pain. “He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable.” (Rachels 589). Here we have a man who will die in a short time and is in great pain. To do nothing, or allow treatment to stop, as in passive euthanasia, would cause the man the same pain as if nothing were changed, which would cause a very high disutility or greater pain. For a man in the same situation who is allowed to undergo active euthanasia, their pain will end in a determined time, death is known and all amends can be made. Looking at the utility of each situation we find for passive euthanasia that the only positive or pleasure is a moral certainty that a disease killed the man instead of machine or drug, and the negatives or pains are the great suffering that must be endured, and the inability to know when life will finally expire. The utility of active euthanasia is broken into the positives of having family members present, a known time of death, and peace of mind knowing that the pain will stop, while the negative is the pain that still must be endured until the operation is completed. Clearly if any numerical values were assigned to the different attributes the option of active euthanasia offers the most benefits or utility to any case of a painful, terminal illness patient. These utility calculations, coupled with examples show how active euthanasia provides the highest utility.

Objection to Premise 1:

When looking at euthanasia and the detriments that it can cause it is easy to see beyond the simple argument to the greater consequences and faults that the argument possesses. The first premise states that a high utility value means that society ought to do it. If society wanted to abolish the known government because it was corrupt and replace it with a self-ruling planned community because they believed it would yield the highest utility, they would be placing themselves willingly into anarchy. This example of anarchy vs. government was said in order to show that maximum anticipated happiness does not necessarily show a strong plan of action even in one case. We can not know the future, but we can attempt to calculate it. Advocates of one action may not incorporate all events into utility and as a result initial happiness can not guide society’s actions if they do not fully grasp the consequences. Therefore when we say that we ought to allow active euthanasia because it yields the highest utility it does not show that there is a direct relationship between the highest utility and the action that society should take because it does not encompass all aspect and events.

Along with the object to the conditional premise by showing the inability of utility to show a distinct action, the premise must be reexamined to identify some of the terms. The first premise said that because of high utility we ought to allow active euthanasia. If we were to define ought as the moral obligation of society instead of the identified course of action, then we would be able to see a further breakdown of the relationship between utility and ought. Once again assuming that ought is equivalent to the moral action taken, we can see that high utility does not equal moral goodness. One example of high utility and low morality is to solve world hunger by using nuclear weapons on the most populated nations or killing innocent people to cause world peace. In the example of wiping out a third world, overpopulated nations to solve world hunger, we create a higher utility since everyone that needs food can use the now extreme source of food, and the sums of pleasure and pain do not come from the third world nations since they are no longer in existence, therefore not part of the sums of happiness. Society is happy since they are all well fed and there is no overcrowding, but in order to do this we had to create a huge moral disaster. The same can be said about the killing of innocent people. If we killed innocent people to settle a land dispute, we would have world peace since no nations have any reasons for malice, but, as the previous example, we committed a moral atrocity in order to attain the highest utility. With all this being stated if we look at the argument again we can see that even though we may or may not have high utility it is not what society ought to do because it might be amoral to do so.

Objection to Premise 2:

The second premise, or the part that talks about the amount of utility active euthanasia has, also has flawed parts that must be addressed. When the premise states highest utility it is relating to the basic equation of utilitarianism, or pleasure minus pain, of all society for all alternatives. The equation can be computed for active euthanasia with a much different result since some attributes’ numerical values may have been poorly assigned or left out entirely. Active euthanasia is a very bad choice from a utilitarian perspective when examining the time period before and after the euthanasia is performed. If we were to compute this we would find pleasures of having a known time of death and less pain than living, but for pains we find that we are murdering a person even if it is out of mercy, an unnecessary death if there is a cure discovered, and the pain of knowing that the person died for no justifiable reason. Any rational person would assign numbers that in any case would result in a utility less than that of doing nothing especially if a cure or even new pain drugs are discovered.

Active euthanasia is a poor option for utility even if we assume that no new drug or therapy will be created within the lifetime of a terminally ill person. Active euthanasia is the terminating of life by killing the person with something else first. No matter which method is employed it is still murder. To give a lethal injection to a sick person is no different than giving it to a criminal for the death penalty or even a random person. The motive is the different, but the end is the same. Murder is a very large pain no matter what is on the pleasure side, both with the premature taking of life, and having a person intentionally kill another. Passive euthanasia or the process of stopping treatment is not nearly as bad. Going back to the example of a sick person, an inmate, and a random person we find that the sick person will still die, but at the correct time and because of illness, the inmate and the random person will not be affected, and will continue life as usual. The result of not allowing active euthanasia is that there is no murder, and those who should live, do live.

Rebuttal/Answer to the Objection to Premise 1

James Rachels’ argument of active euthanasia having the highest utility and as a society we ought to allow it can still be justified against the above objections by showing how the objections do not apply. The first part of the objection to the first premise that showed a relationship between utility and action stated that happiness or utility does not condone a course of action. The examples showed that high happiness could sometimes yield poor consequences. The objection is valid if, and only if, the same time frame is used, however if the entire event, not just the immediate future is taken into account, utilitarianism will not cause a poor result from high happiness. When calculating utility every part of the event and every person must be taken into account or else the calculation will be invalid. If all options and all people are calculated into the basic utilitarian equation then there is a very strong relationship between utility and what we ought to do. Since utilitarianism, when calculated correctly, does not lead to poor consequences but the happiest one for society, the relationship in the first premise of utility and ought is sound.

Changing the working definition of ought to mean the choice made by morality only destroys the relationship from utility to moral obligation if utility is not fully understood. “Justice is a name for certain moral requirements which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility” (Mill 43). Knowing now that justice, in regards to utilitarianism, is equivalent to moral standards, and that moral standards are placed above happiness/reduced pain we can determine that morality and utility are equivalent in any case since any reduction in morality would be a direct reduction in utility. Morality and utility are equivalent for utilitarianism, so a moral obligation can be derived from the best utilitarian alternative, and because morality obligations are linked to utilitarianism, the relationship in premise one remains stable and untarnished.

Rebuttal/Answer to the Objection to Premise 2

Medical breakthroughs happen very quickly and may lead to cures for many terminal diseases, but it also brings false hopes to those who require the breakthrough. Having a cure introduced days after a terminally ill person expires is painful regardless if the person underwent euthanasia. No person is ever assured that a cure will be introduced or even pass through the Food and Drug Administration in time to make a difference in an ill person’s life. The unlikeness of a suitable treatment developed in the remaining time of a person’s life coupled with the immense pain of their condition makes active euthanasia the highest utilitarian alternative. To have a promise of a drug that does not work or even working one would cause a person to suffer with their great pain until they are able to get the new treatment, if they are able to get the new treatment at all. This time suffering causes great such a great disutility that it is not worth living through the time where a drug might appear with the possible result of the patient expiring before it can be administered. Active euthanasia will not differ from what is planned because the only possibility is death. The great reduction in suffering and the tranquility of personal thought makes active euthanasia a higher utility than passive/no euthanasia even if there is a possible cure in the future.

Active euthanasia does not generate less of a utility than any alternative because it involves killing of a person instead of letting them die of their illness. Active euthanasia is only murder if the person receiving it does not request or want it. Because it is requested and only finishes what the human body started, it can not and is not classified as murder. Rachels brought up an example of babies born with Down’s syndrome and how the current method is to let them die. “I can also understand why other people favor destroying these babies quickly and painlessly. Buy why should anyone favor letting ‘dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and days’” (Rachels 590). Any utilitarian can see that if this baby must die either by withering away or by active euthanasia, the highest utility is active euthanasia. This is in no way murder since the action of active euthanasia is that of ending suffering and not the cruel unwilling termination of life that makes up murder. Murder is the killing with malice and the stealing of life from a victim, while active euthanasia is the benevolent attempt to end pain by terminating life. These definitions are clearly not the same, and if they are not the same active euthanasia can not be murder. Since active euthanasia is not murder, the methods of terminating life do not in any way impact utility.

Conclusion

James Rachels made the argument that active euthanasia is the preferable action when a person is in great, unending pain. Objections can be made and answered on the morality of killing someone even if it is out of mercy and the possible consequences if a new treatment is discovered after euthanasia is performed. These were answered by stating that murder is done with malice, while euthanasia is done to end suffering, and that a new treatment would not be likely to occur in that timeframe. No matter what the motives are for killing someone, there is still the action of one person stopping the life of another and morally we all feel that we ought not to kill. While a new treatment may not be discovered often, it only takes one person to die needlessly before their time to show society what a mistake active euthanasia is. If any philosophical view of life or living were absolutely correct, then it is likely that all the world would be following it and society would not have to debate arguments like the one presented here. Perhaps the only answer to arguments like this is to change the way we think, not to justify our position endlessly.

*
*
On Writing an Ethics Paper
Tom Sullivan
Lasell College
2019

Argument tips
If the waitress does a bad job, then it’s Ok not to tip her.
If someone commits a really bad crime, it is morally permissible to put that person to death.
If someone cheats on a test, then it is morally permissible to give that person an “F”.
“Second premise” problem (how to prove)
“No Ethical Standard” problem – WHY are these things permissible? What property do they have?
*
*

Arguments – better – p. 2
If the waitress doing a bad job creates less total utility than if she does a good job, then it’s morally permissible not to tip her.
If someone who commits a really bad crime treats others as means only, and not also as ends in themselves, it is morally permissible to put that person to death.
If someone cheating on a test is unjust, then it is morally permissible to give that person an “F”.
*
*

Arguments – best (action)
If not tipping the waitress doing a bad job creates more total utility than tipping her,then it’s morally permissible not to tip her.
If putting to death someone who commits a really bad crime treats others as means only, and not also as ends in themselves, it is morally wrong to put that person to death.
If failing someone who cheats on a test is just, then it is morally permissible to give someone who cheats an “F”.
*
*

The Waitress
1. If not tipping the waitress doing a bad job creates more total utility than tipping her, then it’s morally permissible not to tip her.
2. Not tipping the waitress doing a bad job creates more total utility than tipping her
——————————————————-
3. Therefore it’s morally permissible not to tip her.
*
*

Capital Punishment
1. If putting to death someone who commits a really bad crime treats others as means only, and not also as ends in themselves, it is morally wrong to put that person to death.
2. Putting to death someone who commits a really bad crime treats others as means only, and not also as ends in themselves.
————————————
3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to put that person to death.
*
*

Cheating
1. If failing someone who cheats on a test is just, then it is morally permissible to give someone who cheats an “F”.
2. Failing someone who cheats on a test is just.
—————————
3. Therefore it is morally permissible to give someone who cheats an “F”.
*
*

*
*
Picking a Topic
Choose a topic from applied ethics – not other fields, please (this is a very broad field!)
Choose something from any source that presents an ethical problem or decision
Conclusion should have a “should” or “morally right” or “morally wrong” (or other similar)
Pick something that is interesting to you
“Current events” are great topics, as well
Check Topic and Argument with professor before proceeding (not from later this semester)

Reminder
Your paper is a critical evaluation of a specific argument.
It is NOT a report on a topic in ethics, such as “abortion” or “terrorism” or “animal rights”, or even “what Mark should have said to Laura”.
The assignment calls for specific steps to evaluate an argument – read the “Paper Instructions” document carefully!!
*
*

Outline
Introduction
Position
Argument (modus ponens)
Justifications (explain and defend) Premise one and Premise two
Objections (E&D, P1 and P2)
Rebuttals/answers (E&D, P1,P2)
Conclusion
*
*

Argument
1. If Mark lying to Laura [about calling her] treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means], then Mark lying to Laura is morally wrong.
2. Mark lying to Laura treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means].
————————————————–
3. Therefore Mark lying to Laura is morally wrong.
*
*

*
*
Introduction
Explain the problem that you are trying to solve (understand it first)
Describe and explain the decision you are faced with
Two or three paragraphs
Singer, for example

*
*
Your Position
At the end of the introduction, state the position that you (or someone else) take on the problem
One sentence
This should also be the conclusion to your argument!

*
*
The Argument
The formal argument that supports the position (above)
Use numbered premises and conclusion
Valid – check with your professor (!!!) before you write your paper!

Argument
1. If Mark lying to Laura [about calling her] treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means], then Mark lying to Laura is morally wrong.
2. Mark lying to Laura treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means].
————————————————–
3. Therefore Mark lying to Laura is morally wrong.
*
*

*
*
Justifications
One of the three most important sections of your paper
State simply why your argument is valid
Define all terms
Explain and Defend Premise 1
Explain and Defend Premise 2
Differentiate “Meaning” and “Truth”
2-3 Paragraphs per premise

1. If Mark lying to Laura [about calling her] treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means], then Mark lying to Laura is morally wrong.
What does it mean?
Plug in the definitions and restate the premise.
Explain what it means.
What is the underlying principle?
What does that mean?
Why is it [arguably] true?
What theory or principle underlies this?
What are the reasons that support that theory – why should the reader buy into this approach?
Use material from the readings, but put this defense in your own words.
Why, why, why.
*
*

2. Mark lying to Laura treats Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means].
What does this mean?
Plug in the definitions and restate the premise.
Explain what it means.
What about this action makes it so that this claim is true?
What does it mean?
Why is it arguably true?
What ideas support this claim?
What evidence is there to show that this is true? Why should the reader agree with your understanding of this set of facts?
Use material from the readings, but put this defense in your own words.
Why, why, why.
*
*

IMPORTANT NOTE!!!
If you are saying the same thing for premise one and premise two, you have one of them wrong. They DO NOT say the same thing (even though some of the same words appear).
*
*

*
*
Objections
Aimed at Premises
One for each premise
Watch for quality – explain and defend EACH objection
Same length as Justifications
Goal is to show each premise false
Don’t object to conclusion

Keep them separate: Premise ONE
Why is premise one false?
Even if [the antecedent] is true, that still does not mean [the consequent]. (!!!)
Aim at the premise: how will an “opponent” argue against you?
Theory weaknesses (!)
*
*

Premise TWO
Why is premise two false?
“Deny” the premise: “Mark lying to Laura does not treat Laura as a means only [and not as both an ends and a means].
Defend this idea (which contradicts pr. 1)
Why, why, why.
*
*

*
*
Answers to Objections
Goal is to show that objections are false
Don’t repeat or restate justifications
Explain and defend: why each objection is false, and give evidence
Two paragraphs each
These Aim At the Objections.

Rebuttal/Answer to Pr. 1 Objection
Why is the objection to premise one false?
How can you reject the claims in the objection?
Remember to explain AND defend what you mean (theory strengths).
And, of course, why, why, why!
*
*

Rebuttal/Answer to Pr. 2 Objection
Why is the objection to premise two false?
How can you reject the claims and evidence presented in the objection?
Explain and defend, and:
Why, why, why.
*
*

*
*
Conclusion
Summarize your paper – don’t add new material
If you are rejecting an argument, put your final replies to “answers” here, briefly
Final comments
Maximum two paragraphs

*
*
Some Tips
Don’t write at the last minute
Pick a topic that interests you – controversy helps
Imagine a diverse, interested audience
Grade is on how well you do justifications, objections, answers – not on your position!
Avoid BS, but use good, relevant evidence
Watch out for “premise 1” implication
Smooth transitions are OK, or use numbers, but be very clear about what you are doing at any time in the paper!

The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.

Common Problems
Really a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusion
Did not evaluate the argument
Only discussed premise two, really
Justified Premise One, then abandoned it
Did not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it works
Justifications that simply restate the argument in more words
SAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!

 
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.

Position – one sentence!
At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett’s argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: “Bennett’s position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed.” This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.

ARGUMENT
Immediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else’s). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the conclusion. For example:
 
(1) If the teaching of values in schools will revive America’s flagging morality, then values should be taught in schools.
(2) The teaching of values in schools will revive America’s flagging morality.
(3) Therefore values should be taught in schools.
NOTE: THE CONCLUSION IS THE POSITION!!

Justification I – 1 of Top 3 parts
First, you should defend the validity of your argument. If your argument is an immediately recognizable form, you may say simply, “This argument is valid because it is in proper modus ponens (or modus tollens) form.” If it is valid, but does not follow any recognizable form, then you must explain briefly why the conclusion follows from the premises. Do not explain modus ponens or modus tollens.
 
Next, carefully define all of the terms that are of any significance in your argument. Although you should feel free to start with a dictionary, be careful to define the terms as the person who gives the argument seems to mean them. Keep in mind that “terms” can mean phrases as well as individual words. For example, in the argument above you may want to define “revive America’s flagging morality”.

Justification – II
Premise 1 – this explains what the premise means, then defend its truth. Why does the antecedent imply the consequent? How is this theory (or ethical principle/standard) true? Needs “thought” evidence.
Premise 2 – this explains and defends Premise 2, which is usually the “factual” or “case” premise – it says something is true about the case. Needs descriptive evidence.

Objections – one per Premise
How could someone argue reasonably that premise one is false? Provide reasons and evidence why premise one is not true: explain and defend. Why does the antecedent NOT imply the consequent?
“Thought” evidence
How could someone argue reasonably that premise tw0 is false? Provide reasons and evidence why premise one is not true: explain and defend. Why are the claims in premise two NOT true?
“descriptive” evidence

ANSWERS to OBJECTIONS
For premise one: why does that objection fail to show that premise one is false? Aim this at the objection – explain and defend how the objection does not work. Thought evidence, again – don’t re-justify premise one.
For premise two: why does that objection fail to show that premise one is false? Aim this at the objection – explain and defend how the objection does not work. Descriptive evidence, again – don’t re-justify premise two.

Conclusion
If you agree with the argument, your conclusion will simply be a summary of your paper to this point, along with any additional thoughts or comments you may have. Don’t add justification.
If you disagree with the argument, you may add a few sentences here to show why the answers to your objections are incorrect, false, or wrong – these need not be paragraph length. But you will want to have the final word, and here’s your chance.
Some people also like to add final comments here (some folks, for example, like to tell me how their thinking on the subject has grown and changed throughout the process of writing the paper). A paragraph or two is all that is needed here.

1

Paper #1

Topic (Capital Punishment)

Argument
· If A Then B
· If capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve then, capital punishment is morally right.
· A
· capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve.
· Therefore, B
· Therefore, capital punishment is morally right.