Assignments

Papers

In this class you will write three 1,000-to-1,200 word papers, and one 2,000-to-2,400 word final paper, for a minimum of 5,000 words. You will revise and resubmit your first paper after meeting with your recitation instructor.

For details on the papers, click on the links below.

Paper 1

Paper 2

Paper 3

Paper 4

General Guidelines

Things that make for a good paper are: clear and accurate reconstructions of arguments we have seen in readings and lecture, a clearly articulated position, your reasons for taking that position, answers to likely criticisms, and evidence of your thinking the issues through for yourself.

As you know, all your writing must be your own. This means that anything quoted verbatim must appear within quotation marks and be accompanied by a footnote¹ that identifies its source. You’re welcome to quote a handout, but we expect the bulk of the paper to be your own wording. Whenever the insights or ideas of another person (including friends of yours and anonymous authors of material on the internet) appear in your paper you must credit that person in a footnote. If you are in any doubt about whether something you are writing amounts to plagiarism, talk about it with your TA before you hand in your paper. You can also review “Academic Integrity at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: A Handbook for Students.” (PDF - 1.4MB)

¹ Name of author, name of piece, place of publication, date of publication

Please choose one of the following questions to answer. Please type out the question you are answering at the top of your paper. The paper should be 1,000-to-1,200 words and is due during Session 8. The rewrite is due during session 12.

Roger White describes a way to move from the seemingly bland observation that the universe is the sort of place whose physical laws allow it to contain living creatures like ourselves, to justified belief in the existence of God. Reconstruct his argument and describe what you take to be the best objection(s) to it. Does any of them defeat the argument?
Some atheists reason like this: “If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity existed then no terrible things would happen. But terrible things do happen. So no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists.” Describe what you take to be the best objection(s) to this argument (you may, for example, want to consider the ‘things can always get better’ or ‘terrible things enable good things’ or ‘price of freedom’ objections we discussed in lecture). Does any of them defeat the argument?
Some people think we need God in order to make sense of morality—that without God, the idea of goodness and badness is meaningless. Why would Socrates think that such a view is mistaken? In giving your answer describe in your own words “the Euthyphro dilemma.” If you were going to defend the position that we can make sense of morality by appeal to God, which horn of the dilemma would you take and how would you defend it against the apparent objection to it?
If you’d like to write on any of the other topics we covered (faith, subjectivism, or objectivism) please consult with your TA about your plan.

Please choose one of the following questions to answer. Please type out the question you are answering at the top of your paper. The paper should be 1,000-to-1,200 words and is due during session 15.

Jackson aims to establish, by way of his Knowledge Argument, that the world has nonphysical features. Reconstruct and assess this argument (you may wish to discuss Churchland’s criticism of it).
Mackie gives two arguments for a claim he calls “moral skepticism.” Explain what “moral skepticism” is in Mackie’s sense. Which of the two arguments do you find most plausible? Reconstruct and assess the argument.
Explain the doctrine of determinism. Do you think it is compatible with free will? If yes, respond to Van Inwagen’s argument for incompatibilism, if no, respond to Frankfurt’s argument for compatibilism.
Explain in your own words Strawson’s argument for why there could be no true moral responsibility. What do you think the best objection is to this argument? Is it compelling? If not, why not?
If you’d like to write about something else, please consult with your TA.

Please choose one of the following questions to answer. Please type out the question you are answering at the top of your paper. The paper should be 1,000-to-1,200 words and is due during session 18.

What is personal fission? Is it the sort of process that we can survive? What does Parfit say about fission? Is he right? Why or why not?
Williams breaks down a fission case into a number of steps. He argues that at no stage does it make sense to start thinking that the A-bodied person is no longer A. If you were to argue that at some stage it does makes sense to think that the A-bodied person is no longer A, which stage would you pick? How would you respond to Williams’ argument against the plausibility of this judgment?
If you wish you can write on a paper topic from the second paper assignment that you did not already write about.
If you’d like to write about something else, please consult with your TA.

Please choose one of the following questions to answer. Please type out the question you are answering at the top of your paper. The paper should be 2,000-to-2,400 words and is due during session 25.

In Dennett’s “Where Am I?,” Dennett describes a scenario where Hamlet (Dennett’s body) is in Oklahoma, while Yorick (Dennett’s brain) is in Texas. Where is Dennett? Defend what you take to be the best answer to this question. What worries does Dennett raise for your answer and how might you respond to them?
What is Wolf’s account of a meaningful life and why does she think we ought to pursue lives that are meaningful? Taking for granted Wolf’s account about what a meaningful life is, is she right that we ought to pursue such lives, and is she right about the reason we ought to pursue such lives? Raise and address an objection to your answer.
In “The Afterlife,” Scheffler argues that our capacity to value many present activities is dependent on our faith in a collective afterlife: the survival and flourishing of humanity after we die. Reconstruct and evaluate his arguments for this claim. Has Scheffler shown that we should care about the survival of our species in the way we care about our own survival? Raise and address an objection to your answer.
According to Haslanger, races and genders are social kinds that should be understood as social positions within hierarchical societies. What is Haslanger’s motivation for adopting this view? Do you think this is the way we should be thinking of races and genders (feel free to focus on just race or just gender if you wish) or is an alternative view more plausible? Raise and address an objection to your answer.
If you’d like to write about something else, please consult with your TA.

Browse Course Material

Course Info

Instructor

Departments

As Taught In

Level

Topics

Learning Resource Types

Problems of Philosophy