Instructions: In this paper you will defend an applied ethics position or an eth

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Instructions: In this paper you will defend an applied ethics position or an eth

Instructions: In this paper you will defend an applied ethics position or an ethical theory or a
metaethical theory of your choice. This is an argumentative philosophy paper, and it should include
five labeled sections:
Introduction: a clear statement of your thesis and paper outline.
1. Positive Argument: an explanation of the view/position you are defending, and one
powerful argument in favor of your view. This section should include both a version of the
argument in numbered premise/conclusion format and a defense of each premise of the
argument. The defense of each premise should include examples, illustrations, and/or
evidence.
2. Objection & Reply: consider one or two powerful objections against your argument, and
offer a reply to each objection. The objections should attempt to demonstrate that one of
the premises of your argument is false.
3. Competing View Knockout: explain and consider an argument for a competing view/position,
followed by a strong objection which debunks the competing view.
Conclusion: Bring everything together and explain why on balance your view/position should
be accepted given the considerations of your paper.
Below there are detailed instructions for each of these sections. The introduction and conclusion
should be merely a short paragraph. The bulk of the paper falls in between sections 1-3.
Format & Citation: Any format is permissible (MLA, Chicago, etc). You do not need to consult
outside sources, but outside sources are permissible as long as they are reliable/suited to the subject.
You do not need to cite the class slides unless you are offering a quotation directly from one of the
slides; for example: (Oliveira, “Objectivism” 11/15/23). The paper should end with a Bibliography
listing all sources.
Specifications: Your paper should be 12-point font and double spaced, submitted as either a pdf or
word.doc.. It should be between 1,500-2,500 words. It should include your name, word count, and
area (i.e. metaethics, ethical theory, or applied ethics) at the top of the first page. The submission
link is on Moodle (under Final Paper Section).
Introduction/Outline: due Thursday, Nov 30 by 11:59pm (on Moodle). This is worth 5% of your
final grade in addition to the final paper. This should include your complete introduction (which is
also an abstract). It should also include a detailed outline of the whole paper, with headings/
explanations about what you plan to do in each section (e.g. what argument/objection you will
consider, etc).
Final Paper Due: Monday, Dec 11, by 11:59pm (on Moodle); late papers will not be accepted
because final grades are due shortly after the due date. Please plan accordingly.
Grading: Your paper will be graded on how well you accomplish the aim of each section of the
paper. For example: how well you explain the view you are defending, how strong is the objection
you consider against your view, etc. You will also be graded on overall writing clarity and
organization. The final paper is worth 25% of your final grade.
1
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS
TOPICS:
Applied Ethics
1. Thomson’s defense of abortion.
2. Marquis’ abortion is immoral.
3. Appiah’s view of Racisms.
4. Racism & Moral Responsibility.
5. Evidentialism (ethics of belief).
6. Pragmatism (ethics of belief).
7. Singer’s Animal Rights
argument.
8. Argument Against Animal
Agriculture.
9. Epistemic Injustice.
Ethical Theory
1. Utilitarianism.
2. Nozick’s Objections.
3. Kantian Ethics
4. O’Neil’s Formula of
Humanity.
5. Aristotle’s Virtue
Ethics.
6. Hursthouse’s Virtue
Ethics.
Metaethics
1. God is Needed for Morality
(Divine Command Theory).
2. Problem of Suffering.
3. Hume’s Constructivism.
4. Kantian Constructivism.
5. Mackie’s Nihilism.
6. Cultural Relativism.
7. Moral Egoism.
8. Objectivism.
Your paper will be a positive defense of one of the listed views/positions in applied ethics, ethical
theory, or metaethics. If you would like to write a moral philosophy paper on a topic not listed here,
you must meet with me to discuss your topic by no later than Wednesday, Nov 29 (send me an email,
and we set a time to meet).
INTRODUCTION: it should be written in clear, brief, and direct language, and provide a road map
for your paper. Examples of ideal introductions:
#1 Against Abortion (Introduction)
In this paper, I will argue for the view that abortion is immoral, except in very rare circumstances
(e.g. the life of the mother is at risk). In section 1, I will explain and defend Marquis’ deprivation of
future life of value argument against abortion. In section 2, I will consider an objection that
Marquis’ argument is incorrect because it leads to the absurd conclusion that using contraceptives is
immoral; next, I reply to said objection. In section 3, I consider a competing argument from
Thomson—the violinist defense of abortion. I end the paper by arguing that the violinist defense is
flawed and should be rejected.
#2 Utilitarianism Defense (Introduction)
In this paper, I will argue for Utilitarianism. In section 1, I will explain Utilitarianism and offer a
defense of the view. I argue that Utilitarianism is plausible in part because it delivers the most
intuitive verdict in the Trolley Problem cases. Next, in section 2, I consider the famous “Utility
Monster” objection (from Nozick) that Utilitarianism is incorrect, and explain why this objection
fails. Last, in section 3, I briefly consider the alternative Kantian view, and I argue that the Kantian
view fails because it yields deeply unintuitive results in the aforementioned Trolley Problem cases.
2
#3 Nihilism Defense (Introduction)
In this paper I will argue for Moral Nihilism. In section 1, I will explain what moral Nihilism is and
defend it. I explain both the conceptual and ontological theses of nihilism, and I defend the latter
via Mackie’s “Argument from Queerness”. Next, in section 2, I consider the Humean objection that
even if the “Argument from Queerness” succeeds, nihilism is false because the conceptual thesis is
false; I reply to this objection arguing that the conceptual thesis is true. Last, in section 3, I briefly
consider the alternative objectivist position (defended by Shafer-Landau). I end by showing that
objectivism fails as well, principally because it lacks the tools for addressing the problems generated
by the “Argument from Queerness”.
1. POSITIVE ARGUMENT:
This section should open with a paragraph explaining the view you will defend. Next, it should
provide a compelling positive argument in numbered premise/conclusion format, followed by a
defense of each of the premises of the argument. The numbered premises may be copied and
pasted from the slides (with citation), the readings, or developed by yourself. Even if developing the
argument by yourself, you can base it on the readings, or reconstruct the best version of an
argument from a philosopher we read. The defense of each premise should include compelling
reasons which support them, such as (but not limited to):
(a)imagined thought experiments, examples, illustrations.
(b) examples/evidence from the actual world.
(c)scientific evidence.
(d) anecdotal evidence.
*You will be graded on how well you explain the view you are defending, whether or not you
provide a valid argument, and how well you defend each premise of your argument.
2. OBJECTION & REPLY:
For this section you should present one (or two) strong objections against your view. Opt for quality
over quantity—it is better to offer one thoroughly discussed objection than two less developed
objections. Objections will either demonstrate that one of the premises of your argument is false, or
that the argument as a whole fails because it leads to a wildly implausible (or absurd) conclusion, or a
logical contradiction. You must explain exactly how the objection you choose undermines your
argument. As above, the objection must be motivated with compelling reasons (thought
experiments, evidence, etc). Next, you will refute this objection—by showing that the objection fails
you defend your argument.
*You will be graded on whether you choose a strong objection, how well you explain the objection,
and how well you refute the chosen objection.
3. COMPETING VIEW KNOCKOUT:
In this section you demonstrate that your view/position is superior to a rival one by debunking a
rival position. In this section simply explain a rival view to yours (in about a paragraph or two),
followed by an objection that shows the competing view is implausible (in about a paragraph or
two).
3
PHILOSOPHICAL WRITING
WRITING STYLE
In contemporary analytic philosophical writing, ideas should be expressed as clearly and plainly as
possible—the abstract concepts we are thinking about are already complicated enough. Do not
embellish your writing in exchange for clarity or add superfluous lines (fluff). Other writing
guidelines include:
(a)Write short sentences, avoid very long paragraphs, and be sure to signal transitions with
sign-posting: “I will argue that…”, “Next I’ll discuss…”, “Now, I will respond to this
objection”, “Finally, I conclude that…” (it is okay to use the first person in philosophy).
(b)Explain the most important philosophical terms used in your paper.
(c)Writing philosophy does not require complicated, or newly invented words. In general, stick
to words and phrases that you are familiar with.
(d) Provide examples and illustrations to support your point and explain abstract ideas. This is
where there is a lot of room to be creative and compelling.
(e)The paper is not an opinion piece—it’s supposed to be an argumentative paper. Provide
reasons that support your conclusion, do not provide unsupported opinions. Instead of
saying: “it always seemed right to me that morality is subjective” tell me why, provide a
reason for why it seems right.
Philosophical writing is very clear, concise, and direct. Clarity means using language and structure
that is easily understood. Conciseness means communicating your ideas with fewer words: writing is
the art of cutting down words. Directness means you are explicit about what you are doing.
WRITING METHOD
There are a few proven strategies for improving the quality of your final draft, these include:
(a)Physically print your final draft for proof reading. Reading materials in different mediums
(both computer screens and physically) allows you to pick up more mistakes.
(b) Read over your draft multiple times with multiple purposes. Do a grammatical/style read over
just thinking about how to make the writing shorter, clearer, etc. Next, do a philosophical
read over just thinking about how you can better support/improve your argument. Third, do
a critical read over—read the paper as if you completely disagreed with your position—where
are the holes?
(c) Read your paper out loud, this also allows you to catch more mistakes.
(d) Let other people read your paper for feedback—your roommate, classmates, etc.

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!