Moraility

Choose either Non-cognitive Nihilism, Ethical Subjectivism, or Ethical Relativism. Part I: Research and describe a cultural practice that seems morally problematic to you. The practice may be one of your own culture, or of another culture (you may not use the example of Female Genital Mutilation discussed in class). Explain some of the reasons that people give for why this practice should be followed. Suggested length 1.5 pages. Part II: A) define the meta-ethical view you have chosen, and explain what that view would conclude about the morality of the practice. B) Using Shafer-Landau’s Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?, choose among the Argument from Freedom of Conscience, the Argument from Tolerance, the Argument from Disagreement, or the Argument from Inadequate Evidence for the one you think is the best argument in favor of the metaethical view, and present the argument in numbered premise/conclusion form. You will have to modify the argument to make it specifically about either Non-cognitive Nihilism, Ethical Subjectivism, or Ethical Relativism: as stated in the book, the conclusion is about moral skepticism generally or about knowledge of moral facts. C) Discuss a weakness of that argument (is it invalid? are any of the premises false or problematic?)- you may discuss a weakness that Shafer-Landau identifies, or you may identify a new weakness. Suggested length 1.5 pages. Part III: A) Develop your argument for or against the meta-ethical view you have chosen: what are your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with that view of morality. If you’ve chosen Nihilism, explain why you agree or disagree with the claim that actions are neither morally right nor morally wrong. If you’ve chosen Ethical Subjectivism, explain why you agree or disagree with the claim that actions are morally right just because the individual doing the action believes it is. If you’ve chosen Ethical Relativism, explain why agree or disagree with the claim that actions are morally right just because the culture in which they are done endorses them. Present your argument in numbered premise/conclusion form. B) Conclude by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of your argument (is it valid? are any of your premises controversial?). Suggested length 2 pages. Remember to keep your argument focused on the issue whether the meta-ethical view is true (and not on the issue of whether the particular practice is moral). Format: typed, double-spaced, pages numbered, stapled. Identify when Parts I, II, and III begin/end. You will submit both i) a paper copy in class and ii) an electronic copy of the paper to Turnitin (on the course Blackboard site, under Assignments). Bibliography: include references for all the works you have considered in developing your argument, not just for the works that you actually quote. No particular format is required, as long as it’s clear when you are presenting someone else’s ideas and when you are presenting your own. You can consult the syllabus for the policy concerning Academic Integrity: please ask me if you have questions about properly citing work and avoiding plagiarism. Philosophy 130 Morality Paper Assignment Worth 25% of final grade. Guidance for your paper: No elaborate introduction or conclusion paragraphs are necessary. Avoid using opening sentences like “Plato was the greatest philosopher of all time” or “Since the dawn of time, philosophers have pondered the nature of morality”: these kinds of sentences are corny and almost always false. Your 1st sentence should be your thesis statement. For example, “Shafer-Landau argues that the Argument from Freedom of Expression fails to support Ethical Relativism: I will criticize Shafer-Landau’s argument and present an improved version of the Argument from Freedom of Expression in order to defend Ethical Relativism.” In presenting an argument, the task is to explain the connection between the reasons given and the conclusion. For example, if it’s true that there’s lots of disagreement among people about which actions are morally acceptable (premise 1), why does that show that morality is subjective (conclusion)? There must be at least one more premise that connects disagreement and subjectivity, and this is what you need to spell out (notice that there’s nothing explicitly about subjectivity in “people disagree about what’s morally right/wrong”). Sometimes premises are left unstated because they may seem too obvious to state. It’s important to spell out the assumed premises: they may not be as obviously true as you assume. For example, if the assumed premise is “any time people disagree, the issue is a subjective one,” then the assumed premise is false (because it’s possible to disagree over objective matters of fact, like disagreements whether the Earth is flat). It's better to pick only a few of the reasons that you think are the strongest and develop and detail them than to drown the reader with a huge list of reasons that are only mentioned and not explained. Develop one line argument by connecting dependent premises, rather than listing a bunch of independent reasons. The rubric that will be used to grade your paper is posted on the course Blackboard site, under Assignments. You should look at it to make sure that your paper contains all the elements that I will be looking for.