Humanities Homework Help

You have some choice of which questions to answer. There will be a total of four questions you are asked to answer from a much longer list (you pick the four, but you must choose two answer two questions from each of what I will label Questions A and Questions B). Each question is worth 25% of the total test grade.

Choose any four of the following questions to answer. Each is worth 25% of your overall test grade.

Choose two of the following (this list is a finalized list):

1) Based on “The Apology” by Plato – (i) provide an elucidation of Socrates’ indictments; (ii) elaborate his defences against these charges; (iii) provide three arguments to convince your reader that the asking of questions can count as a form of corruption (specifically, an act that can corrupt others); and (iv) provide three arguments to convince your reader that the asking of questions may not count as a form of corruption (specifically, an act that can corrupt others).

2) Based on lectures and “The Apology” by Plato – Socrates never advances positive knowledge, but seeks knowledge by attempting to discover what cannot be a case of knowledge based on the reasons others offer as evidence for that “knowledge”. How does this largely negative exercise help us discover/move towards knowledge?

3) Ethical Egoism – (i) provide an elucidation of the various versions of ethical egoism that exist (look to the textbook AND my lecture(s)); (ii) provide two arguments not included in the TEXTBOOK for why ethical egoism (specify which version(s) you are referencing) contains internal tensions/confusions/problems that make the position implausible; and (iii) provide two arguments for why even if ethical egoism is true/plausible (specify which version(s) you are referencing), ethical egoism does not challenge our ability to engage in practical ethics together.

3) Utilitarianism – (i) elaborate what utilitarianism amounts to as described in the textbook; (ii) provide four arguments not referenced in the textbook to suggest that utilitarianism suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend utilitarianism on two grounds not offered by the textbook itself.

4) Kant’s Deontology – (i) elaborate Kant’s account of deontology (his Categorical Imperative); (ii) outline four issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Kant’s deontology suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Kant’s deontology on two grounds not offered by Kant himself.

5) Virtue Ethics – (i) elaborate Aristotle’s account of virtue ethics; (ii) outline four issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that virtue ethics suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend virtue ethics on two grounds not offered by Aristotle himself or the textbook.

6) Rawls – (i) elaborate Rawls’ account as found in the textbook; (ii) outline four issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Rawls’ account suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Rawls’ account on two grounds not offered by Rawls himself or the textbook.

Choose two of the following (this list is a finalized list):

1) “All Animals are Equal” by Singer – (i) elaborate Singer’s argument in this piece; (ii) outline three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that Singer’s argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend Singer’s argument on three grounds not offered by Singer himself or by the textbook.

2) “Animal Citizenship” by Donaldson and Kymlicka – (i) elaborate the authors’ argument in this piece; (ii) outline three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that the authors’ argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend the authors’ argument on three grounds not offered by the authors themselves or by the textbook.

3) “Animal Citizenship” by Donaldson and Kymlicka – (i) elaborate the authors’ argument in this piece; (ii) outline three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that the authors’ argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend the authors’ argument on three grounds not offered by the authors themselves or by the textbook.

4) Elaborate Stone’s argument; (ii) elucidate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that the author’s argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend the author’s argument on three grounds not offered by the author themselves or by the textbook.

5) Elaborate Taylor’s argument; (ii) elucidate three issues not referenced in the textbook to argue that the author’s argument suffers from tensions/confusions/problems; and (iii) defend the author’s argument on three grounds not offered by the author themselves or by the textbook.

6) With reference to Leopold’s piece, (i) reconstruct Leopold’s position into clear premises and a conclusion; (ii) articulate two objections to Leopold’s piece (provide examples, provide at least one counter-objection to each objection advanced and attempt to respond to it/them, in turn); and (iii) articulate how one may come to cultivate the kind of attitude Leopold believes is necessary for his Land Ethic (provide detailed examples).

7) With reference to Naess’s piece, (i) reconstruct Naess’s position into premises and a conclusion; (ii) articulate two objections to Naess’s piece (provide examples, provide at least one counter-objection to each objection advanced and attempt to respond to it/them, in turn); and (iii) articulate how one may come to cultivate the kind of attitude Naess believes is necessary for his deep ecosophy-T to thrive (provide detailed examples).

*remember that for the first subsection of each question, when I ask you to “elaborate”, I mean more like “outline” or “articulate” or “lay bare” or “state” (see my Nexus post about this).

*Grading Rubric:

Grades for tests are based on depth of analysis, novelty of the content, whether the grammar is affecting the clarity of the claim that is attempting to be put across, the quality of a student’s inferential and step by step argumentation made explicit in their writing, ability to present examples/analogies to produce arguments, ability to anticipate counter-objections to positions/arguments and answer them (when appropriate). I also must take into account the presence and quality of all of these factors compared to the same work turned in by other students.

1) When providing an elucidation of an article’s argument, do not provide a sort of summary that is written in a kind of chronological sense. This is to say, do not write it as you might a book report. Instead, try to isolate the most pertinent concepts and claims and connect them together to produce an account of how the authors premises/reasons/claims are connected to produce a sub-conclusion/conclusion, or, where applicable, a series of sub-conclusions that lead to a final conclusion.

2) While elucidating, identify potential counter-arguments that the author(s) anticipates and how those counter-arguments are addressed.

3) Try as much as possible to put ideas/arguments into your own words in elucidating the article. If you are using the article’s words, you MUST quote and cite appropriately.

4) When creating arguments, try as much as possible to come up with these arguments on your own. You may borrow ideas here and there (and if so, cite), but overall, the arguments should be your own. Anyone can use google.

5) When borrowing words and ideas, if the words are exact, they must be in quotes and a citation must follow every sentence with borrowed words. There should not just be one citation at the end of the argument/paragraph.

6) When writing arguments, you must be as explicit as possible in outlining the reasons (premises) for your overall claim (argument). An argument is a set of reasons, connected (and explain how they are connected), that lead to a conclusion or final claim. Many of you left out parts of this recipe for an argument. An argument=series of premises, inferentially linked, which lead to a conclusion. By “inferentially linked”, I mean you must explain, explicitly, how your premises lead to the conclusion you advance.

7) Many of you write using unclear referents. If you see a comment to the effect of “ref?”, this means that the marker cannot tell to what some word or concept you have written is referring. For instance, many of you write ‘it’, ‘this’, etc. in ways that leave it open as to what these words stand for or to what they refer.

8) When producing arguments, consider a few possible objections and try to respond to them.

9) When producing arguments, use analogies or examples to bolster your arguments.

10) When I’ve indicated that you should advance arguments not already anticipated or addressed by the author(s) themselves, I really do mean it!

11) In the case of some of you, your grammar really does affect the reader’s ability decipher your claims. Please use spell check, the multiple free grammar checks that are available online, or have someone proofread your written work prior to submitting it.

12) As I have separated the “questions” with sub-numbering – i.e., (i), (ii), etc. – please include the sub-numbering in answering the test so that the reader can clearly and quickly identify which part of the “question” to which you are attending.

13) Try to make it clear where your are paraphrasing someone else’s view and where your view begins/ends.whenever you are glossing another’s position or borrowing ideas/examples/providing empirical evidence, etc. you must cite!