For this assignment, you are to follow the instructions provided in the 3. How toWrite an Essay for Philosophy 2700 Fall 2021 document posted on the WEEK 1subpage under the 1. Meta-Ethics tab on OWL.As a quick reminder, there are three tasks you need to complete:a. Introduction (Thesis + road-map): State the claim you intend to defend in the FIRSTsentence, then outline the steps you intend to take to defend that thesis (about 55 130words, or about 5 10% of the length of your essay).b. Exegesis: Describe the argument that is the object of the thesis youve chosen tosupport (your description should be between 370 650 words long, or 1/3 1/2 thelength of your paper; as a description, most of your quotations from the text shouldappear in this section).c. Your Reason: Develop (at least) one good reason for thinking that the thesis youvechosen to support is compelling/plausible (about 650 750 words long, or the remaining1/2 2/3 of your paper), given the thesis you presented in (a) and the argument youdescribed in (b).NOTE: the primary goal of these assignments is to get you to independently developyour skills at making a well-reasoned argument. That means THESE ARE NOTRESEARCH ESSAYS!!!SO: You MAY NOT research criticisms of, or commentary about, any of the authorsweve read.In other words I dont care what other people have, for example, said about Platos TheEuthyphro I only care what it is you think, and why thats what you think.(Note: There is a great amount of criticism and commentary on the two Plato readings inparticular; as historical texts, much has been written about their meaning and meritsIm talking about tens of thousands of pages. Given this paper is so short, you really needto avoid consulting that secondary material since its bound to lead you into confusion.)There is one circumstance in which you can do some minimal research: If you believeyour argument will be improved with an appeal to some fact about the world, you mayinclude a source that supports that fact (along with an appropriate citation so the facts youcite can be verified). Any facts cited need to come from reputable (though not necessarilyacademic) sources (e.g., Wikipedia will often be sufficient).I will allow you to use whatever citation style you are comfortable with, my onlyrequirement being that whatever style you choose, you use it consistently.If youre only relying on the textbook (which is what I expect most of you will do), youcan omit a bibliography altogether just make sure you include page references inbrackets in the text of your essay after your quotations (just like I did in the sampleessay).Also Note: The primary feature of the grading scheme is that your papers will be gradedaccording to the quality of the argument you present only.That is, your grade will be determined based on the degree to which you have an accurateand focused exegesis (description of the argument you criticize), and the plausibility ofthe reason you develop.While there is no explicit assessment of style, your word choice, sentence structure, andparagraph structure are all exceedingly important. If your writing is unclear, then youwont have an accurate and focused exegesis, or compelling argument, i.e., the quality ofyour argument is going to suffer, meaning your result will suffer as well.Similarly, there is no automatic deduction for papers that fail to meet, or exceed, the wordlimits.That having been said, papers that are shorter than 1100 words are likely to contain eitheran insufficient description of the argument subject to criticism, or not enough detail tosupport your reason. Papers longer than 1300 words, by contrast, are likely to suffer froma loss focus. In both cases, your result will suffer when, and to the degree that, theseproblems undermine the quality of your argument.Again: The precise grading scheme can be found in both the 3. How to Write an Essayfor Philosophy 2700 Fall 2021 document, and the second video lecture on the WEEK 1subpage on OWL.3. The Topics Present and defend a thesis that responds to any one of the followingtopics:NOTE: Given that these essays are short, I have created topics that are very narrowlyfocused on one element of the arguments that appear in the readings I have tried todesign each such that an adequate analysis should take between 1100 1300 words, sotry not amend the topic in any significant manner. If you do modify the topic, you need tomake sure that it doesnt make the argument you intend to present too broad to defend inonly 1300 words.ALSO NOTE: Youll see that all of these topics direct you to criticize some one aspectof the arguments upon which they are focused this is intentional, to help you avoidsimply repeating the arguments you are discussing. You can, if you so choose, try towrite a positive defence of the element upon which you focus, but I stronglyrecommend that you simply follow my suggestion and be CRITICAL that is, Irecommend you choose to argue against the view you address.1. Shaw argues, on pages 11 and 12, that one of the primary problems with meta-ethicalrelativism is that it wrongly assumes fundamental ethical disagreement exists betweencultural practices. Write an essay wherein you develop at least one reason that showsShaws critique of meta-ethical relativism is flawed.NOTE: You need to make sure you do not simply repeat claims/statements made inthe Waluchow text. You are welcome to rely on the Waluchow text, but even if youdont do so specifically, you need to make sure you dont simply restate thecriticisms/arguments he makes. If you do rely on him for inspiration, you need to citethe claims he makes that inspire you.2. On pages 21 23, Shaw argues that it is possible to distinguish between good and badcultural moral practices if we focus on the degree to which the moral code of aparticular culture succeeds in promoting human flourishing. Write an essay in whichyou elaborate at least one good reason for thinking Shaws position is not wellsupported.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.3. On pages 30 31, Harman argues that the role of observation in science and ethics isdifferent; in science, observation explains why you subscribe to a particular theory,whereas it does not provide a similar explanation in ethics. Write an essay in whichyou articulate one good reason for thinking that Harmans account of this differenceis flawed.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.4. On pages 70 73 of The Euthyphro, Socrates argues an action must be holyindependent of any of the gods beliefs about the holiness of the action. Write anessay wherein you offer one reason for thinking that Socratess argument about theindependent character of holiness is problematic.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.5. On pages 90 and 91, Glaucon relies on the myth of the Ring of Gyges to test ourintuitions about egoism; according to Glaucon, everyone would (psychologicalegoism) and should (ethical egoism) behave as Gyges did when it is possible to actwithout regard for the interests of others without negative consequences. Write anessay in which you develop at least one good reason for thinking that Glauconsthought experiment fails to support his claim.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.6. On pages 103 and 104, Rachels presents and then rejects the criticism that ethicalegoism yields a contradiction by arguing that the view does not generate a logicalflaw. Write an essay in which you develop at least one good reason for thinking thatRachelss attempt to undermine this criticism does not succeed.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.7. Rachels argues, on pages 105 106 that the best means of refuting egoism is toemphasize the degree to which it conflicts with a basic feature of our moral lives, i.e.,the pre-argumentative value of human life and the implied moral concern for allhumans that follows from that value. Write an essay wherein you elaborate at leastone good reason for thinking that Rachelss response to egoism is implausible.Note: Again, youll need to acknowledge any relevant discussions from Waluchowupon which you draw, and not merely repeat any of his arguments.
TO BE CLEAR, YOU CAN CHOOSE THE TOPIC YOU WOULD LIKE FROM ANY OF THESE OPTIONS I SUGGESTED!!!