In this paper, you will articulate, defend, challenge, and evaluate a claim.

The claim should be based on Chapters 4, 5, or 6. ONLY

The claim selected is: “Right to work (w/out a union) is a moral right at work”

Instructions: write a five-part part paper. 

-Part one consists of you articulating a claim, from the readings or from the exam, that you want to spend time thinking about in this assignment.  Here you will also discuss why this claim is controversial, by bringing up some commonly held convictions contrary to this claim.

-In part two, you defend that claim, or offer reasons why it makes sense, on the basis of either Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or Virtue Ethics. 

-In part three, you challenge part two's defense of the claim. 

-In part four, you evaluate your claim – you state reasons why it ultimately is or is not likely to be true, based on the defense and the challenge of the defense. 

-In part five, you reflect on what you have done: a brief summary and a conclusion about what you have learned.

FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURE DULLY

Number the sections as they appear.

IMPORTANT: There must be five labeled parts in your paper, and fifteen numbered parts distributed among those three labeled parts.  Follow the sample at the end.

The Paper (Do the following tasks)

Part I: The claim and why it is interesting

1)    Choose a philosophical claim either from the list above, reading or from the exam.  The claim should assert that something is moral or not, or involve morality in some other way.  State the claim – in one sentence.  (A claim is a statement that judges, claims or asserts something to be true.) 

2)    Provide the page number or section from the book or the number of the question from the exam, from which you got the claim.

3)    Explain to the reader of your paper why the claim in 1) is contrary to what is usually thought – in other words, why the claim is iconoclastic or controversial.  Bring up some common assumptions, on the basis of which the claim does not make sense.

Part II: The justification for the claim

4)    Name the philosophical theory of morality that you will use to defend your Part 1 claim:  Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or Virtue Ethics.  Choose one.

5)    Name what makes an action moral on that theory: autonomy, utility, or virtue.  Choose one.

6)    Explain to the reader of your paper the meaning of what you named in 5).  This explanation should be in your own words.  You can use brief quotations or paraphrase – but you then have to state the point of the quotation in your own words before or after it (not just have the quotation by itself).

7)    Explain why the reader of your paper should think that morality is in fact about what you wrote in 5) and 6).  Give general reasons or use examples that would persuade your reader that morality is about autonomy, utility, or virtue – and not something else (selfishness, for example).

8)    Explain to the reader of your paper why what s claimed in 1) is defended by the philosophical theory of morality that you choose and explained in 4)-7).

Part III: The challenge to the justification of your claim

9)    Name the strategy for your challenge.  Choose one of the following.  What is written in 7) does not make sense – morality is in fact not what you wrote in 4)-6).  What is written in 8) does not make sense – morality is in fact what you wrote in 4)-6) but it refutes or does not justify your claim in 1).

10)  Execute the strategy you named in 9) to support your challenge to Part II.  Give general reasons or use examples that expand on the strategy and would persuade your reader.  Make sure that you explain your answer here.  If you are challenging 7), then explain why 7) does not make sense – either use an example to refute it or argue for an alternative theory of morality – and explain what the alternative theory of morality might or should be.  If you are challenging 8), then explain why 8) does not make sense – explain the factor in the issue due to which the theory you used in Part II refutes doe does not justify the claim in 1).

Part IV: The evaluation of the claim

11) State whether you think the claim in 1) is likely to be true or not  – due to the reasons given in its defense in Part II.  “Yes, the claim is likely to be true, due to the reasons given in its defense” or “No, the claim is not likely to be true, due to the reasons given in its defense”.  Choose one.

12) Name the strategy for your evaluation.  Choose one of the following.  You agree more with what you wrote in Part II rather than with what you wrote in Part III – because you found 7) to be stronger than its challenge or because you found 8) to be stronger than its challenge.  You agree more with what you wrote in Part III than with what you wrote in Part II – because you found the challenge to 7) to be stronger than 7) or because you found the challenge to 8) to be stronger than 8).

13) Execute the strategy you named in 12) to support your evaluation in 11).  Give general reasons or use examples that expand on the strategy in 12) and would persuade your reader.  Make sure that you explain your answer here.

Part V: Reflection

14)  Briefly summarize what you did in this paper in 1)-13).

15)  Discuss what have you learned – that you did not know before – from doing this paper.

Grading criteria: in addition to evaluating how adequately you have fulfilled the task of each part of the paper, you will be graded for originality and depth of your writing.  Originality means that in some way what you write must not be overly simplistic and obvious, but must show an effort to explore something new in a way that is personal to you.  Depth means that you discuss what you are writing about in detail and with explanation that is made possible by what we learn in this class.  Your paper should show mastery of what we learn (such as applying concepts that we learn in a way that shows comprehension of those concepts.).  The paper should not be such that could have been written by an intelligent person who never took this class – but must be such that is written by an intelligent person who applies what is learned in this class with some depth.  The paper must be informed by what we learned.  Additionally, if what you are bringing to the paper that is your own has been addressed in our class's reading, you have to acknowledge and respond to what is in the reading.   

Note: “everybody is different”, “everyone thinks differently”, “who is to say ...”, “that's just how I feel or think” or other versions of such intellectual laziness are not acceptable reasons for or against any position and do not earn any credit.  You have to give a specific reason due to which a position makes sense or not.  In other words, what is it exactly that a different person is thinking when he supports or refutes something with reasons?