Read from the book and choose one argument and write 500-600 words.

I will attach the book too.

God is the measuring stick of all law. This is the main thesis of Martin Luther King’s response to his clerical critics in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” These critics were perturbed by King’s willingness to break the law. They viewed this as antithetical (and counterproductive) to the whole purpose of the Civil Rights Movement: that being equal protection under the law for all people. King responds that neither laws nor the governments that write them can demand obedience in and of themselves. Indeed, according to King, “…there are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’” (1215). According to King, a just law finds its foundation in the law of God. Unjust laws, on the other hand, are “not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (1215).

This transcendent nature of moral law necessarily means that, at least on a basic level, no secret wisdom or special knowledge is needed to discern between the two types. King offers a couple of examples to demonstrate. First, he outlines the obvious injustice of a majority holding a minority to a statute it does not hold itself to (1215). He also reminds his readers that Hitler’s actions were totally legal during his diabolical reign (1216). Likely his strongest argument–particularly considering his audience–comes in pointing to those in Scripture who broke laws and yet were vindicated by God (1216). Thus, a law does not necessarily mean “right,” and breaking a law does not necessarily mean “wrong.”

I agree emphatically with King’s assessment. God is chief lawgiver and Judge of all the earth; He dictates the rules by which humans may interact, including governments and all human institutions. These laws (again, on a very basic level) are written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). We know them and are accountable to them. Laws that contradict God’s law (either by commanding something God forbids or forbidding something God commands) must be broken. King cites Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego, and the Apostles, as well he should. All of them acted in line with the principle King commends: They disobeyed lovingly and took the punishment willingly.

But there are obvious problems. King was writing a letter, not a theological treatise, so the brevity of his comments is understandable. Nonetheless, a deeper look is worthwhile. Consider homosexuality. The biblical witness is clear that homosexuality is sinful. Romans 1 describes it as a sin that is proof of God’s wrath. The Law of God refers to it as an abomination, and homosexuals were to be executed (Leviticus 20:13). How would King feel about the United States government executing gay people? Would altering the sentence to jail time or a fine make it more or less palatable in his view? God, as giver, definer, and governor of human sexuality is clear in His pronouncement of the nature of homosexual acts, and He himself instituted civil punishments for them. Under King’s assessment then, a government passing similar laws has done nothing unjust. This would likely be a bit perturbing to those who use the Civil Rights Movement as a basis for (for lack of a better phrase) the Gay Rights Movement.

PHL

1

10
Sample Short Assignment and Short Assignment Guide
Loomis

I’ve written a sample short assignment using Plato’s Apology as the text. You will be writing short assignments for subsequent texts starting next week.

Remember that these short assignments are to be typewritten and 1-2 pages single spaced (or 2-4 pages double spaced, which I prefer). Use a normal font size (10-12 point) and margins.

This sample assignment is under two pages. It looks longer because I’ve added, in boldface, some extra comments describing what I’m doing. You won’t need to do this.

Plato’s Apology

The Apology was written by Plato, and relates Socrates’ defense at his trial on charges of corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates argues that he is innocent of both charges.
His defense is ultimately unsuccessful, and he is convicted and sentenced to death. Socrates concludes the Apology by arguing that a just man should have no fear of death.

[Note that this introductory paragraph concisely does two things: it sets up the issue to be discussed, and it briefly presents the position of the Socrates on the main topics (his innocence and his view of death). Long background histories and so on are not needed in these papers – get straight to the point.]

Socrates defends himself against the charges brought against him by his prosecutor Meletus in two ways. One way consists of a description of Socrates’ motivation and method, which he hopes will explain to the jury why some people, including his prosecutors, dislike him. The second defense consists of Socrates responding directly to the two charges brought against him: “corrupting the young” and impiety, or more specifically, “not believing in the gods in whom the city believes” (p. 28). I’ll address these two lines of defense in turn.

[I wrote this second paragraph to clarify the argumentative structure of the paper. I could have also combined this second paragraph with the first one, but it seemed more natural to separate it in this case.

When I thought about Socrates’ defense, it seemed to me that it had two main parts: the part where he explains why he has a bad reputation, and the part where he responds directly to the charges against him.

The first paragraphs are usually the hardest ones to write. You have to stop and think about what the main thesis or theses of the paper are, and also think about the main argument(s) for them. Fortunately, once you’ve thought about these things, the rest of the paper usually falls into place.]

Socrates begins his defense by acknowledging that many people have accused him of “studying things in the sky and below the earth” and of “making the worse into the stronger argument” and teaching these things to others (p. 26). He replies that such accusations are “slanders”; the truth, he continues, is that he does not claim to have any special knowledge of anything in the sky or elsewhere. In support of this, Socrates relates the story of the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracle, who was thought to give voice to the Greek god Apollo, had told Socrates’ friend Chirephon that no man was wiser than Socrates. Surprised by this, Socrates surmises that the only reason the god said this is that Socrates seems to know only that he does not know very much. This, Socrates explains, makes him unlike most other people he meets, who “think [they] know something when they do not” (p. 27). Others frequently fail to know what they claim to know, at least when questioned by Socrates. This leads other people to dislike him, Socrates claims, and is behind his unpopularity. Nonetheless, he insists that questioning others is a part of his “service to the god” (Apollo) (p. 27).

Later in his defense, Socrates makes repeated reference to the idea that he it is his duty to the god Apollo to question peoples’ claims to knowledge. He points out that he has never received pay for his services, and presents his poverty as proof of his service to the god (p. 30). Finally, Socrates claims that the god has given him a “divine sign” which warns him when he is about to do something wrong. It is this sign, he says, that has prevented him from leading a “public” life of politics.

Socrates responds to the charge that he is guilty of corrupting the youth, in two ways. The first way (p. 28) attempts to show that Meletus’ charge is “frivolous” on the grounds that it does not conform to plausible examples of how creatures become corrupted. Under questioning from Socrates, Meletus grants that all of the citizens of Athens except Socrates benefit the youth of Athens; Socrates alone corrupts them. Yet this is implausible, Socrates implies, for in other cases of corruption, such as the corruption of horses by bad owners, the contrary is the case, with only one or a few individuals benefiting them, and most people corrupting them.

Socrates’ second argument against the charge of corrupting the youth presents a dilemma. Although Meletus asserts that Socrates corrupts the youth deliberately, Socrates vehemently denies this (p. 29). Assuming that the alleged corruption is not deliberate, Socrates then presents Meletus with two possibilities: “Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case” (p. 29). If he doesn’t corrupt the young, then he is innocent of the charge. But even if he corrupts the young unwillingly, Socrates continues, he ought not to be brought to trial, for the proper response to someone who is unwillingly doing harm is to instruct the wrongdoer, and not to avoid them, as Meletus has done.

Socrates’ defense against the charge of impiety is more direct. He points out that the entire defense he has given so far rests upon his belief in the Greek god Apollo, who Socrates believes has given him a divine sign, and who he has spent his adult life serving. “Clearly”, he says, “if I convinced you by my supplication [to the god] to do violence to your oath of office, I would be teaching you not to believe that there are gods …. This is far from being the case, gentlemen.” (p. 32)

[The five paragraphs above all develop the arguments outlined in paragraph two.]

Socrates is found guilty on both charges. During the sentencing phase he proposes, outrageously, that his punishment be that he be awarded free meals in the Prytaneum (the town hall of Athens) at the expense of the city. His actual punishment is the death penalty. The Apology concludes with Socrates arguing that the just man should not fear death.

[Notice that I say very little about the long sentencing phase of the Apology. This is because, although it is amusing, there is not much argument given in this part. This will happen in other essays too; there may be large parts of the text that you can ignore or summarize very briefly since they don’t contain important arguments.]

Socrates begins this last argument by claiming that death is one of two things: “either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change a relocation of the soul” (p. 34). If the dead have no perception, he says, this would be an advantage, for he thinks that the “most pleasant night of sleep” is the one that is sound and completely dreamless, as death would be. On the other hand, if death is a change of place, then this too would be a blessing. After all, Socrates claims, if one goes where the dead are, then one can, he assumes, speak with them. And what could be more enjoyable than speaking with Hesiod, Homer, and other great Greek poets, statesmen, and heroes? Socrates concludes his defense (p. 35) by remarking that his death penalty may actually be a blessing for him, both for the reasons he has just given and because his “divine sign” has not opposed him at any time during his defense, suggesting to Socrates that he has done no wrong in his own defense.

Further Guidelines for the Short Assignments:

– These short essay assignments are not quite the same as book reports or article summaries. The difference is this: the short essay assignments should focus on the arguments presented in the paper, rather than trying to summarize everything that is said (as an article summary would). Thus, as my example shows, there may be times when you ignore or only briefly describe large parts of the text, and other times when you focus very closely on just one or two paragraphs. If you just summarize the paper without focusing on the arguments, expect to get a mediocre grade.

– In preparing these short assignments, you should start by asking yourself two questions:

i. What is the main claim (or claims, if there is more than one)?

ii. What are the main arguments for the claim (or claims)?

Most of the paper, and most of your grade, is determined by your answer to these questions. Many of the papers we will read will have one or two major arguments, and then several arguments for smaller points that are only indirectly related. The Apology is like this: there are several short arguments (on page 33, e.g.) that aren’t really crucial to the overall paper. I ignored them. Part of your job in writing these is to choose what is really important and what is not.

– On the syllabus, I said that you should include a question about the reading. Since we have over 40 students in our class, I won’t have time to answer them all. So I’ve decided to make the question part optional.

– In the example above, I have a footnote at the end of the first sentence which gives the full reference for the text I’m using. I’d like you to give a similar footnote or endnote in each short assignment. You’ll probably just have to do this once in each paper, since everything you’ll be citing will be from our book.

Since the other page references are from the same text, only a page reference is needed. Give a page reference whenever you quote from or closely paraphrase an author.

–

Get straight to the point. Don’t bother with lengthy introductory or concluding paragraphs. One or two sentences to introduce your topic is usually sufficient.

– Articulate the thesis or position clearly. You need to make clear what the author is arguing for or against. Although this is not difficult to do, failure to clearly state a thesis is probably the single most common problem with philosophy papers.

– Be concise. Most or all of what you say should be articulating or defending your thesis, or illustrating the links in your reasoning. Avoid lengthy sentence constructions wherever possible.

– Stay on track. It’s easy and often tempting to wander into areas that don’t directly relate to the question. Don’t.

Grading Criteria
.

A number of factors are considered in determining your grade. Since these factors interrelate in various ways, it is senseless to try to assign a percentage value to each. Let’s just say that an ‘A’ paper does well in every area, lower grades have trouble in one or more areas.

1. Accuracy of content. Obviously, if you present another’s position, you need to get it right. This is especially important when you present the author’s arguments for his or her position.

2. Thesis coherently stated (if applicable). The main position or positions of the author you are discussing must be made clear.

3. Primary claims supported with evidence. You must back up your major claims (about what the author is arguing for) with some evidence, be it textual, argumentative, empirical, etc. I realize that the degree to which you are able to do this on short assignments is limited, but some support is usually possible.

4. Paper coherently structured. It should be clear how each paragraph relates to the overall paper, and how each sentence works within each paragraph.

5. Grammar and spelling correct. Be sure to proofread your papers.

� Plato, Apology, translated by G.M.A. Grube. Reprinted in Philosophical Problems: An Annotated Anthology. Laurence Bonjour and Ann Baker, eds. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005, pp. 24-35.

PAGE

1

Patel|4

ON LIBERTY

On Liberty

Aakil Patel

Professor Eduardo Frajman

PHL 106-GW1

Short essay assignment

John Stuart Mill’s thesis is that the struggle between liberty and authority is the most salient feature of the earliest histories of Greece, Rome and England. He argues that the struggle was initially between the subjects (the ruled) and the government (the ruler). He then briefs on the rise of liberties by patriots as the power of the rulers was considered dangerous. He comments on the authority of the society vis-à-vis individual rights and liberties.

John [Mill] argues that the rulers were in most histories (save for the popular governments of Greece) engulfed in an essentially antagonistic position to the subjects or the people they ruled. The rulers were mostly from one ethnic tribe who obtained power through either conquests or inheritance and did not enjoy popular mandate and pleasure of the ruled. Their dangerous power was considered a necessary tool for oppressing the weak subjects.

The patriots therefore had to come up with limitations on the powers of the rulers to avert oppression to the ruled. John says the patriots did this through two ways. First, they attempted to obtain a recognition of some irreducible minimums or immunities, which are political rights or liberties. If the ruler infringed these liberties, it would be regarded as breach of duty and general resistance or rebellion would be justifiable. Second, they attempted to establish constitutional checks whereby a representation of the people or some institution had to participate in decision making with the ruler. The first model of limitation was complied with by most European countries but the second was opposed.

John argues that as human affairs advanced, people felt that the rulers must hold power at the pleasure of the ruled, which power is revocable at their will. This measure was to keep the rulers on their toes to avoid abusing power to their disadvantage. The patriots desired that the rulers be associated with the people, and that their interests and desires be aligned with the nation’s. The people’s will is described as the most numerous or active segment of the population the majority or those who succeed in gaining acceptance as the majority.

According to John Mills,[Mill] the aspect of tyranny of the majority is an evil that is entrenched by the rulers. The society needs to be on the watch. A society itself can be tyrant over the separate individuals who form it. Such tyranny of the society maybe much worse than political oppression by public functionaries and the individuals need to be protected. There should be a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence to protect people from political despotism.

John feels that a society’s rules of conduct have their foundation on the society’s norms. He argues that likings and disliking’s of a society determine the rules laid down for observance, with punishment at law. There have been misgivings about whether a society’s likings and disliking’s should bind individuals as law. There have been instances where rights and liberties of individuals have been justified on merited grounds of principle as against the society and the claim that societies exercise authority over individual members has been disputed and is in controversy.

In conclusion, John Mill tries to demonstrate how liberty and authority have engaged each other at the battlefield. There are gain, loses and compromises for each. REFERENCES.

· Mill, John Stuart (1860). On Liberty (2nd ed). London: John Parker & Son.

· You read this book? You didn’t use our textbook??? Why?????

This paper does not show that you read the text on Mill we discussed in class. Did you listen to my two lectures on Mill? From this paper it look like you did not.

You are summarizing here a story that we did not discuss in our class. We are looking at Mill’s argument regarding freedom of the individual in society. You need to explain that argument clearly, using quotes from the text to support your claims.

Grade 2/5