Philosophy 234 - Paper assignment 2


The paper is structurally just like the first paper.
* It will have a thesis. The thesis must have a very specific format. Either it must be from the list below, or I must approve it in writing.
* It will give an argument that your thesis is true.
* It will respond to all the obvious objections to your argument or thesis; these are all the objections that come directly from what we covered in class.
* It will explain a non-obvious objection to your thesis. This is an objection we have not covered in class. You must do your best to make this look like a good objection (even though you don't believe it is a good objection, since you believe your thesis).
* Finally, it will explain why the non-obvious objection does not work, and so why your thesis really is true.

The grading standards are here.

Pre-approved theses:

You may not change any aspect of these theses (except to fill in the brackets in each) without my written approval. These theses contain two conditionals; you must argue for both, but only have to give a counterexample to one.

* If [conditions] then it is morally permissible for a company to break the law; if [those conditions are not met], then it is morally wrong for a company to break a law.

* If [conditions] then it is morally wrong for a company to not cooperate with the law; if [those conditions are not met], then it is morally permissible for a company to not cooperate with the law. (I'm using "cooperate" the way Ostas does - it means going "above and beyond" the letter of the law, to meet the spirit of the law).

* If an executive knowingly makes a decision that does not maximize their company's profits, and [conditions], then they have done something morally permissible. If an executive knowingly makes a decision that does not maximize their company's profits, and [those conditions are not met], then they have done something morally wrong. (By "makes a decision," I mean "while on the job;" you don't need to discuss how executives should conduct their private lives) (If you want to say that it is always wrong to not maximize profits, you can use the following thesis: If an executive knowingly makes a decision that does not maximize their company's profits, then they have done something morally wrong)

If [conditions] then it is morally permissible for employees to waste time while on the job; if [those conditions are not met], then it is morally wrong. (To be clear, wasting time involves doing less than the employee was hired to do; taking breaks but still getting all one's work done doesn't count as wasting time. You can also argue that this is always wrong, or always permissible)


Theses that need approval

I'm open to you writing on other topics; talk to me if you are interested. Theses on these topics should have the same structure as the pre-approved ones - using two conditionals, they should set out the conditions that distinguish the morally permissible from the wrong. Non-pre-approved theses must be approved by me in writing. Here are some suggestions for topics; there are other topics I might approve as well:

* Are there ever conditions in which, when hiring, it is permissible to give preference to certain races, genders, religions, or sexual orientations? Alternately, you might write on hiring that is not intended to favor certain groups, but foreseeably does. You can potentially also write about what counts as a just or unjust distribution of jobs or salaries within a company, or within society.

* When it is wrong or permissible for businesses to engage in political speech?

* How should the political speech of businesses be regulated? What sorts of speech should businesses be allowed to engage in? This is about what sorts of laws are morally permissible to make, or are just/unjust.

* There are interesting papers to be written about philanthropy, or about whether companies are obligated to benefit the public. I suspect that some of these can use the pre-approved thesis about not maximizing profit. But, if you can't say what you want within the context of that thesis, try a non-pre-approved thesis; a thesis about when it is just or unjust for a company to profit from something socially costly might be really interesting.

A note on trivial theses (this applies to both pre-approved and novel theses) Here's an example of a trivial thesis: "If selling A does not violate any moral obligations, then selling A is permissible." This just means "If it is permissible, it is permissible." That's not worth writing about. A trivial thesis is one where the antecedent and consequent mean basically the same thing. Trivial theses are no good because there are really not informative. You are not allowed to write about trivial theses.


Outline due: Apr 13, 8pm. Subject line 234 OUTLINE PAPER 2.
Draft due: Apr 23, email to your partner and cc me, subject line 234 DRAFT PAPER 2
Comments due: Apr 25, 8pm, email to your partner and cc me, subject line 234 COMMENTS PAPER 2
Paper Due: Apr 29, 8pm, subject line 234 PAPER 2 FINAL.


This line intentionally left blank