Philosophy 355 Contemporary Moral Problems Darwall Fall 1999 FINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT Select one of the topics below and write a 1000 to 1500 word essay. Do not, however, select the same topic on which you have written (or are writing) your “rolling paper” assignment. Your papers will be due at the beginning of lecture on Thursday, December 9. Bear in mind that the virtues of a philosophy paper are clarity, depth of analysis and critical questioning, judicious consideration of arguments, and logical organization. Be sensitive to such questions as: Are my claims clear? Are my arguments clear? Am I being fair to opposing views and adequately appreciative of what might be said in response to my claims and arguments. Your papers should engage the readings by taking account of specific claims and arguments (and locating them in the text with specific references). A helpful source of advice on writing philosophy papers can be found at http://www.lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/howto.html. 1. Write a critical essay in which you present Boxill’s “backward-looking argument” for affirmative action, and critically assess it in light of the arguments presented by Scalia. What sort of responses to Scalia’s arguments might Boxill make? In your discussion try to focus on moral questions (e.g., what sort of obligations might the backward-looking argument demonstrate?) to a greater extent than on empirical factual questions (e.g., which segment of the black community actually benefits from current practices of affirmative action?) Do you find the backward-looking argument convincing? Why or why not? 2. Consider the case of the dying cancer patient described by Rachels (B,457). Do you think that doctor-assisted suicide is morally permissible in this case? Analyze the relevant moral features, defend your answer with reasons, lay out what you think are the strongest arguments on the other side, and respond to them. Consider also what the Court says about a constitutionally-protected right to suicide in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Do you agree with the Court’s reasoning? Why or why not? [Full text accessible at Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe (“Networked Digital Resources” at www.lib.umich.edu] 3. Critically discuss under what conditions, if any, abortion is morally permissible. [Remember: this is a different question from under what conditions the law should permit abortion.] Lay out your reasoning in such a way as to convince, as best you can, someone who disagrees with you. Say what you think is the most challenging objection to your reasoning and why. How would you defend your position against this objection? 4. Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to help alleviate world hunger, whereas Hardin argues we do not. Construct what you think the strongest arguments are for each of these positions within, respectively, one of consequentialism (utilitarianism), libertarianism, and contractualism. Reflect on how the more general moral theory illuminates this particular issue, and on what we learn about the general theory from its analysis of this issue. 5. Write an essay in which you critically discuss the relevance of issues concerning the nature of the concept of race and the relation between race, genes, and IQ to the debate concerning race-based affirmative action. Critically analyze to what extent, if any, issues concerning the latter depend on the former issues. Finally, lay out what you think is the most defensible position on affirmative action. Give reasons for your position, say what you think are the strongest reasons against it and why, and say how you might respond to these reasons against your view. 6. Critically discuss the claim by Dworkin and colleagues that the distinction between the “positive” act or “killing someone” and “merely allowing a ‘natural’ position to result in death,” is of no great moral relevance in the issue concerning euthanasia. Do you find this claim defensible or not? Give your reasons (for finding the claim defensible or not), the strongest reason against your view, and your best response to the reasons against.