Phil-1120 Final Paper
Worth 30%
Length: 3-4 pages
To be submitted on learn under « Assignments »
Presentation: Papers must be turned in as Word documents, double-spaced in Times New Roman 12 font. Anonymize your paper: do not put your name on it. Please put your student number on your paper instead.
Do not leave this paper to last minute. A good paper must be reworked and proofread (you can ask someone else to proofread it for you, or better yet, go to a CAPS workshop).
Structure: Your final paper must have the same structure as paper 1, with an introduction, a body of the text divided in 2 or 3 paragraphs and a conclusion. Pay special attention to your introduction and conclusion. Your introduction must introduce the reader to the topic of your paper, state your thesis and announce what you will say in your paper precisely by stating what argument will be presented in each paragraph. Your conclusion must sum up your paper’s argument and provide some further insight or opening.
If you have any trouble figuring the topic or argument you want to present in your paper, contact me as soon as possible so I can guide you.
If we meet individually to discuss your paper: bring an outline or the introduction of your paper to discuss.
Grading Grid /100
• Clarity and coherence of the text, structure, quality of writing: /30
• Introduction: /15
• Body of the text:
Logical quality and originality of the arguments: /20
Adequate and accurate use of authors and concepts seen in class: /20
• Conclusion: /15
The paper: Your job for this paper is to present your own carefully-constructed, thoughtful and convincing argument on a topic of your choice. You must use at least two of the texts we have read in class (Cronon, Singer, Callicott). You can also refer to Kant, Mill or other ethical approaches studied in class. Your paper should reflect your own reflection on an issue. Be convincing, draw from the authors and concepts seen in class and include your own original examples.
These are the topics you can chose from:
Choice 1) Ethical dilemma
Utilitarian Peter Singer believes that all sentient beings, including non-human animals deserve moral consideration, based on their capacity for suffering and for enjoyment. Singer proposes that we change our relation to the non-human world by respecting the rights of sentient non-human animals (i.e. we should stop killing and exploiting animals).
Ecologist John B Callicott argues, against this view, that the supreme moral value should not be the greatest happiness of all sentient beings but the beauty, stability and integrity of the biotic community. Callicott believes that we must consider the good of the whole, and not only of individuals. This means that even non-sentient beings, such as streams, mountains, rocks and plants deserve moral consideration. On the other hand, it also means that some sentient beings must die or be killed for the good of the whole ecosystem.
Who, in your opinion, is right? Which position appears the strongest ethical one to you? Is Singer’s utilitarianism or Callicott’s land ethic most likely to help us solve some of the problems we face today in our relation to the non-human world?
Make sure to take position on some of the issues these two thinkers disagree on, such as: the rights of animal, the status of domesticated animal, the supreme moral value, the importance of individuals vs the whole, the acceptability of killing and hunting, etc. Make sure to quote or paraphrase the authors’ arguments, but also to offer your own insight. You should, for instance, include some examples of your own to back your point. You can also appeal to other moral thinkers and philosophies we have seen in class such as Kantian ethic, consequentialist ethic, virtue ethic, ethic of care.
Choice 2) Applied ethic!
New Mexico and most of the American South West has been experiencing a period of megadrought for some years. Scientists tell us this megadrought is caused by climate change and excessive and wasteful use of water by humans, especially for agriculture. The megadrought causes wildfires (which destroy both natural habitats and human settlements and further accelerate climate change) and is also endangering all the species which rely on limited water sources to survive in a dry environment.
How, in your opinion, must our relationship to nature and our view of the world change to solve such problems as the megadrought? Draw inspiration from the thoughts of William Cronon, Peter Singer or John B Callicott (you do not have to use all 3 thinkers) to formulate your argument. You can also appeal to other moral thinkers and philosophies we have seen in class: e.g. Kantian ethic, consequentialist ethic, virtue ethic, ethic of care. Make sure you provide a thoughtful analysis of the situation.
Here are some articles and a scientific study about the drought:
https://www.drought.gov/states/new-mexico#historical-conditions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/12/rio-grande-new-mexico-river-water
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/314
https://www.ecowatch.com/southwest-drought-climate-crisis-2645742986.html
Note: You can also follow this “applied ethic” paper model but chose to write about another problem beside the megadrought. In all cases, show how the thoughts of some of these authors can help us solve the problem.
Choice 3) Chose your own topic
Do you want to defend Kant against the utilitarians or Mill against the Kantians? Do you want to reply to Callicott or Cronon from a different perspective (e.g. present a non-Western concept of nature, for instance)?
You can write on any topic you like, so long as you use at least 2 of the authors seen in class (Kant, Mill, Cronon, Singer, Callicott) and present a carefully constructed argument. Please contact me to validate your idea.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|