Paper Assignment One

Paper Assignment One Philosophy 235
First paper assignment

The papers will be about 3 pages, single spaced. The basic idea is that you will state a thesis (selected from one of the following topics) and argue for it. You will also have to state a serious objection to your thesis that someone who disagreed with you would raise, and respond to that objection. The precise grading standards are posted separately.

Pre-approved Topics:

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. For each of the following, everything in italics should be considered the thesis. "Wrong" and "permissible" mean "morally wrong" and "morally permissible."

* If [specify some conditions] is true of a being, then that being has a moral 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, and A and B both have a right to x, then A's right to x is more morally significant than B's. If [your antecedent] is not true, and A and B both have a right to x, then their rights are equally morally significant. 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 fact that this protects the rights or interests of other beings besides A and B. 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/not suffer], then neither's right is more morally significant than the other's. See above for an explanation of moral significance. This thesis basically says that all beings that have rights have rights that are equally strong.

* If ______ is true of A and ______ of B, and A and B both have interests, then A's interests are more morally significant than B's. If [your antecedent] is not true, and A and B both have interests, then their interests are equally morally significant. By "A's interests are more morally significant than B's," 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 _____.

* If [conditions] then it is morally unjust for being B to not be treated like a citizen of nation N. If [those conditions are not met] then it is just.

Possible non-pre-approved Topics:
Theses on these topics must be approved by me; that is, if you write on one of these, I have to have approved, in writing, the exact thesis your paper is about. Your proposed thesis should have the same structure as those above; that is, it should tell me "If [conditions] then such and such is wrong; if not, then it is permissible."

Citizens normally have voting rights. Should animals (or plants, species, or ecosystems) have something like voting rights? Obviously they can't actually vote, but they could have people whose job it is to vote on their behalf.

Does it ever make sense to put animals (or plants, species, or ecosystems) on trial? Are there other sorts of legal procedures that animals (or plants etc.) should be able to participate in?

Is there something morally wrong with some or all use of animals (or plants, species, or ecosystems) for self-interested purposes?

I'm open to you writing on other topics as well, as long as they require you to engage with what we have learned to this point this semester.

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 16, 8pm. Email your thesis and a brief description of your argument. Put this in the body of your email - no attachments. Use the following subject line: 235 OUTLINE PAPER 1.
Draft due: Mar 2, 8pm, email it to your partner (as an attachment) and cc your TA, subject line 235 DRAFT PAPER 1
Comments due: Mar 7, 8pm, email to your partner and cc your TA, subject line 235 COMMENTS PAPER 1
Paper Due: Mar 11, 8pm; subject line 235 PAPER 1 FINAL.