Writing Assignment
Length: Essays should be NO MORE than 1,500 words, including footnotes and excluding bibliography. Format: Double spacing, Times New Roman (or some other sensible font), size 12. Submission: Submit, as a Word or pdf document, through the link called “Writing Assignment I” on Canvas. For EXTREMELY good advice on writing a philosophical essay see: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writin… Choose one of the following questions:
1. Given what we know about the nature of self-control, to what extent, if any, are addicts morally responsible? (Module 4)
2. Critically asses the argument that we don’t have free will based on Libet’s experimental results. (Module 5)
3. To what extent, if any, are psychopaths morally responsible? (Module 5)
4. Critically asses the traditional theory of self-deception or the deflationary theory of self-deception. (Module 6)
5. To what extent, if any, does neuroscientific knowledge support either moral revisionism or moral eliminativism? (Module 7)
6. Choose some other topic from Modules 4-7. (If you choose this option I recommend, but do not require, that you run your topic by me.) Note: The topics above are quite broad.
You are both allowed and encouraged to focus more narrowly. Part of the challenge of this assignment involves setting yourself a narrow and well-defined task that you can accomplish in the allotted word limit (don’t bite off more than you can chew). Some advice: Make an outline with a clear structure. Focus on 2 clearly setting up the issue, making sure to define key terms and concepts. Be sure to be charitable to the authors that you discuss (that is, give their views the most plausible, as opposed to the least plausible, interpretation). Strive for clarity (read the Jim Pryor stuff above!). My favorite advice from the Pryor article is to write while imagining that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean: “He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he’s mean, so he’s not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.)” Now, of course, those reading your paper will be none of these things! But if you write with this idea in mind, it will help you achieve a high level of clarity and precision, which is highly valued in philosophical writing. I still try to keep these things in mind
