Question: Is it okay to break a covenant marriage?
Take up a question that can be answered with a “yes” or a “no,” such as “Is it possible to have a covenant marriage with more than two people?” Whatever question you choose should be able to be answered by a “yes” or a “no.”
Your question must be properly philosophical, not historical or sociological.
You can choose any question that you wish so long as the question is related to the content of this course, its readings and the lectures.
The first line of your paper indicates how you answer the question at hand, e.g., “Yes, polygamous marriage with five people could be a covenant marriage because…” There is no need for introductory remarks such as, “I’ve always enjoyed watching Sister Wives….”
Make sure you define any important terms that may be used ambiguously in your question, e.g., “By ‘marriage,’ I mean….” “I define ‘cohabitation as ……” Seek definitions that capture the essence of what you are talking about rather than mere nominal definitions from a dictionary.
Aim for personal insight: work characterized by creative and insightful treatment of issues, natural application of theory to practical issues, important original expression of ideas, and depth of understanding.
Do not engage in the ostrich defense of your position.
After the first line, in the next two paragraphs, offer two arguments or justifications for thinking that your answer to the question (your thesis) is true. In other words, if someone were to ask you, why did you answer ‘yes’ (or ‘no’), what argument would you offer? “I believe my thesis that [your thesis here] because….All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man.” Make each paragraph its own independent argument for believing what you believe about the thesis.
Make sure that your arguments provide new information/reasons/argument rather than just repeating reasons/arguments/perspectives that we have already talked about in class or in the readings.
In the third paragraph, offer an objection to your view that would be raised by an intelligent, well-read person. Make your objection strong. This is the part of the paper students often have the most difficult doing well. If you do not consider the best objections to your view, your paper will be weakened (straw man fallacy). It is often a good idea (but it is not required) to ask intelligent, well-read people who disagree with you why they disagree with you. You could also search the internet or books to find intelligent, informed people who disagree with your view.
In the fourth paragraph, rebut this objection. Show why it does not apply to what you say or why it is untrue or why this is not a problem for your view. Make sure that your response to the objection is not simply repeating arguments/reasons/responses that we have already talked about in class or in the readings. In other words, please use your original thinking (or use your outside research) to contribute to the paper something other than a summary of what we have learned about in class or in the assigned readings.
In the fifth paragraph, offer another objection to your view as in step 13) above.
In the next paragraph, refute this objection as in step 14) above..
There is no particular page limit or word limit. Just make sure no paragraph is longer than 1/2 a page.
EXAMPLE
First Argument: (first paragraph defining key terms and indicating first argument for your thesis follows).
Second Argument: (second paragraph indicating second argument for your thesis follows).
First Objection: (fourth paragraph offering an objection to your view).
Reply to First Objection: (fifth paragraph refuting the objection because of false premise(s) invalid reasoning, or equivocal terms).
Second Objection: (sixth paragraph with different objection to your thesis).
Reply to Second Objection: This claim does not make sense on further consideration because (seventh paragraph follows refuting the last objection on account of its false premise(s), invalid reasoning, and/or equivocal terms).
Readings:
Pruss, One Body, Chapter 6, “Union, Commitment, and Marriage” up to section 6.4
Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson, “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367, no. 1 589 (2012): 657-69.
https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/henrich_boyd_richerson_2012.pdf
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|