What is McBrayer’s view of how we should think of facts and opinions? Take the time to use the definitions he offers in the discussions. Explain his argument for thinking of the terms in the manner that he thinks is correct. Then, explain how he thinks that this distinction is relevant to the moral relativism debate. How does he think that a proper understanding of facts and opinions (or beliefs) will help us think about the relativism debate?
Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though
you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts.
2. What is William Clifford’s primary argument to show that we are not entitled to hold beliefs under certain conditions? What if I live alone in the wilderness and I form a belief via one of the fallacious arguments that we studied in Module 2? Would Clifford still hold that I am not entitled to my belief? Justify your judgment. Explain what the relevant fallacies are as you consider what Clifford would say about them.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you
may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense,
use course concepts.
3. We only briefly encountered subjectivism in here. What does that term mean as it applies to moral theory? What might the term mean if we were to treat it as a theory of truth? Now, suppose that I say the following: I know that you disagree with Bob. But truth is subjective. Thus, Bob is not wrong. In fact, he’s right. If you agree with him, you will think that he is right, after all. So, Bob is right!
There are two arguments in the previous paragraph. What are they? Neither argument is one that a professional philosopher would employ. What are the various problems with the arguments offered in the previous paragraph? There are quite a few. Use our course concepts to identify them.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you
may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense,
use course concepts.
Grading Rubric 1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis? (5%)
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the
citations completed properly? (5%) 3. Does the paper attribute the
correct view to the philosophers in question? (10%) 4. Is/are the
philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?
(For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a
tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)
(25%) 5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her
discussion? (15%) 6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a
hodgepodge of disparate ideas? (10%) 7. Does the conclusion tie
together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a
non-sequitur? (5%) 8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the
college level? (5%) 9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate
use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%)
Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s
own work?