Philosophy 235
First paper assignment

The papers will be about 3 pages, single spaced. The basic idea is that you will argue for your thesis, raise a serious objection to it, and respond to that objection. The precise grading standards are posted separately.

Topics:
Pick one:

* If [specify some conditions] is true of a being, then that being has a right to [life / property (choose one)]. If [those same conditions] are not met, then it does not. I'm open to you writing about other rights, but if you want to, you must have that OKed by me first in writing (send me an email).

* If ______ is true of A and ______ of B, then A's rights are more morally significant than B's. By "rights are more morally significant," I mean that, (a) if one must violate either A's rights or B's rights, then it is obligatory to violate B's, and (b) the fact that it is obligatory to violate B's rights is not explained just by the good consequences of violating B's rights or by the fact that this protects the rights of other beings. A helpful way to think about this is, if the only difference between two actions is just that one violates A's rights and the other violates B's, if A's rights are more morally significant than one would be obligated to violate B's.

* If two beings have a right to [life/property], then neither's right is more morally significant than the other. See above for an explanation of moral significance. This thesis basically says that all beings that have rights have rights that are equally strong.

* No beings have rights; what makes an action morally wrong or permissible is only based on how good or bad the outcomes of the action are.

* If ______ is true of A and ______ of B, then A's interests are more morally significant than B's. By "interests are more morally significant," I mean that if one has to do the same amount of harm to A or to B, and that harm-doing causes no other harms, then one is obligated to do the harm to B.

* All species / ecosystems (choose one) have a right to _____.

* I'm open to you writing on other topics, but you must get your topic approved by me in writing.

One easy way to go wrong on this paper is to choose a thesis that is trivially true. What does this mean? Imagine that someone's thesis is "If one is obligated to harm A rather than B, then A's interests are more morally significant than B." This thesis is trivially true - it is true but that's just because the antecedent and consequent mean the same thing. So the thesis says nothing, really. Another example: one might say, "If it is sometimes wrong to harm a thing, even if this overall good, then that thing has a right to not be harmed." This is also basically just repeating yourself, since that it is wrong to harm something is (more or less) just what "has a right to not be harmed" means.

---

Outline due: Feb 12, 8pm. Email your thesis and a brief description of your argument. Put this in the body of your email - no attachments. Subject line 235 OUTLINE PAPER 1.
Draft due: Feb 26, 8pm, email it to your partner (as an attachment) and cc me, subject line 235 DRAFT PAPER 1
Comments due: Feb 28, 8pm, email to your partner and cc me, subject line 235 COMMENTS PAPER 1
Paper Due: March 2, 8pm; subject line 235 PAPER 1 FINAL.