Part III: Articulating & Defending a Position

One 600-word essay adjudicating between the arguments.

Here, you are choosing sides, but this is NOT about giving your opinion. You will be giving REASONS for the side you are taking. Opinions do not matter in philosophy. Only reasons matter. You will state your position on the issue. You may be mostly on the pro-side, mostly on the con-side, or truly split between the two (it is perfectly reasonable to say that you are not convinced by the arguments on either side).

Taking a position means being more convinced by some arguments than by others. You will need to restate the best arguments on the side you DO NOT take and explain why those arguments are not convincing to you. You will explain which arguments are most convincing to you and why.

Tips:

• Try to make a case that someone who disagrees with you will think is reasonable, even if they still disagree afterwards. Give people good reasons to adopt your position.
• It is perfectly reasonable to say that certain arguments on the side you oppose are good and that you aren’t exactly sure how to respond to them (e.g. You might say something like, “Smith makes a very good point when she says ‘…,’ and I’m not exactly sure how to respond to that. I’m more persuaded by Jones’ argument on the other side, though, because …”).
• Respond academically—i.e. give your reasons respectfully and with a level of scholarly detachment (you don’t have to be personally offended that some people disagree with you; the people on the other side aren’t evil or stupid). Take the tone of a scholar. Understand that smart, good people disagree with you and have decent reasons for doing so. Do not trivialize arguments on the other side.

Grading Criteria (25 points):

I am always happy to discuss the grade you earned on your work. The following is a set of general considerations and guidelines I use for assigning grades.

22.5 – 25 points: Excellent Essay
20 – 22.49 points: Above-Average Essay
17.5 – 19.99 points: Good Essay
15 – 17.49 points: Needs Work
0 – 14.99 points: Serious Problems with the Essay

An excellent essay …

is the assigned word limit (neither longer nor shorter)

is free from grammatical and spelling errors

is well-organized and easy to follow

is scholarly in tone and style (objective and dispassionate)

clearly states the position you are taking on the issue

identifies the strengths of the arguments on the position being taken

identifies the weaknesses of the arguments on the position being rejected

clearly articulates your reasons for taking the position you do in your own words

demonstrates a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the positions in your own words

is free from unsubstantiated opinions

I assess your essays by how they deviate from an excellent essay. I do not assign specific points to each element described above, but rather judge the essay as a whole. A relatively minor element, like grammatical errors, might become more significant if errors permeate the essay, since they can make an essay unreadable.

[See the assignment overview and individual assignments for instructions for the essay.]

Topic: Eating Animals

Pro-side

Required exposition: Singer, “All Animals Are Equal”

Citation: Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Philosophic Exchange. Volume 5, Number 1 (1974): 103-116.

One of these:

Hursthouse, “Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals”

Citation: Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Applying Virtue Ethics to Our Treatment of the Other Animals,” in Jennifer Welchman (ed), The Practice of Virtue. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2006. 136-155.

Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”

Citation: Regan, Tom. 1985, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in Peter Singer (ed.), In Defence of Animals, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. 13–26.

Korsgaard, “Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals”

Citation: Korsgaard, Christine M. “Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals,” in Grethe B. Peterson (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 25/26, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2004.

Con-side

Required exposition: Schedler, “Does Ethical Meat Eating Maximize Utility?”

Citation: Schedler, George. “Does Ethical Meat Eating Maximize Utility?,” Social Theory and Practice. Volume 31, Number 4 (2005): 499-511.

One of these:

Bruckner, “Strict Vegetarianism is Immoral”

Citation: Bruckner, Donald W. “Strict Vegetarianism is Immoral,” in Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (eds.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 30-47

Belshaw, “Meat”

Citation: Belshaw, Christopher. “Meat,” in Ben Bramble and Bob Fischer (eds.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford: OUP, 2016. 9-19.

Davis, “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet”

Citation: Davis, Stephen L. “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Volume 16, Issue 4 (2003): 387-394.

20 mins ago

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

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