Paper #2
In about 700-900 words (approximately 3-4 pages), do the following:
1) Restate/explain (in your own words) James Rachels’ argument for the conclusion that
Cultural Relativism is False.
In other words, identify the reasons (premises) that Rachels provides in favor of this
conclusion, and explain how those reasons (premises) are used to reach his conclusion.
Here is a skeleton of the argument Rachels provides for his conclusion:
(Premise 1) [he explains what Cultural Relativism is]
(Premise 2) [he shows the logical consequences that come with accepting Cultural Relativism as true]
(Premise 3) [he explains why these consequences are unreasonable]
(Premise 4) [he explains given how unreasonable these consequences are Cultural Relativism ought
not to be accepted as true]
(C) Cultural Relativism is False.
As you read the article, identify the sections where he is brining up these points and in
your paper elaborate on them. Make a coherent presentation for Singer’s case.
2) After you have done that, reflect on Rachels’ conclusion and his reasons for the
conclusion.
a. Do you agree with Rachels? Why or why not?
i. If you do agree with Rachels, what is a possible objection one may have
to his conclusion, and how would you defend Rachels position. For
example, someone may think there we have evidence that moral norms
have changed over time and that they are different from culture to culture.
For example, eating cows is morally permissible in the US, but not in parts
of India. Doesn’t this sort of example show that Rachels is wrong about
the nature of morality?
ii. If you do not agree with Rachels, why not? Which of the reasons for his
conclusion do you find problematic, and why? Or why don’t you think his
conclusion follows from his premises? Does the truth of Cultural
Relativism really entail the unreasonable logical consequences he claims it
does? If not, explain why not.
Your paper must be written in a standard 12-point font, Times New Roman, double-spaced,
with one-inch margins on all sides. Its pages must be numbered by your word-processor.
Content 1. The first paragraph must effectively, and clearly, introduce the topic and purpose of the
paper.
2. Do not begin your paper with a sentence like “Since the dawn of time, humans have
wondered about the nature of morality,” or something along those lines. Just get to the
point of the paper. Instead, you can begin with something like “This paper critically
examines ….”. Then you can move into what the topic/purpose of the paper is.
3. Write your paper so that it can be understood by an undergraduate student who has
taken one prior philosophy course.
4. Make sure your sentences are grammatical and words are correctly spelled (read your
paper out loud, or have someone read it out loud to you).
5. Use short simple sentences when possible.
6. Make sure the paper is well structured. In other words, make sure it is easy to follow
what you are saying from paragraph to paragraph.
7. Make sure the paper accurately and thoroughly addresses the main questions of the
prompt.
8. Adequately define and explain technical terms. In other words, would a reader
unfamiliar with the material be able to understand the philosophical terms/jargon you
are using? (if you are not sure, have someone not taking the class read your paper).
9. Overall, make sure the paper gives a sense that you (the author) understands the
material and are able to explain it in a clear and effective way.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|