Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Writing Assignment for Friday: a revision of the assignment originally due Monday

New writing assignment, due this Friday 9/13. Note additions in red.

How do the different moral theories in the Rachels chapter (“A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy”) (online on the blog) and the Pence chapter explain why the wrong actions (as a group, that we developed in class: you will likely want to mention some items from that last) below are wrong and the not wrong actions are not wrong? Write a short essay (3-4 pages) that explains 
each theory’s answer(s), starting with the theories at the end of the chapter (e.g., Kant and utilitarianism) and working towards the theories at the beginning. Also briefly discuss the African moral theories: links for these are below. For each theory from Rachels and Pence, you should provide a properly cited quote from Rachels and Pence to use to state and explain the theory. Focus on Kant, utilitarianism and the social contract theory, especially Rawls, as presented by Pence. 

Your paper will likely have main claims like this: "According to this theory…. , these actions are wrong because …."

Your paper should have an introduction. It sound begin like this:

"In this paper, I will discuss the topic(s) of _____. The question(s) I will attempt to answer is (are): "

Since this is not an argumentative paper, your paper doesn't have a thesis. Your goal is to just accurately explain the theories. 

Each paragraph should focus on one, and only one, topic. 

To ensure that your paper is formatted properly, you should use the paper template here:

P.S. Here is an essay evaluation sheet, most of which would be helpful; the only part that isn't relevant here is the 'thesis' part, since this assignment above doesn't have a thesis.

Essay Evaluation Sheet

Here are some concerns for argumentative essays. How well does your essay address them?1.      Introduction: do you have an introduction that explains the topic(s) you will address, or the question(s) you will answer?
2.       Thesis: does your paper have a thesis, that is, a conclusion that you try to support?
3.       Arguments: does your paper give an explicit argument or arguments in support of your conclusion?
a.       Do you explicitly state your premises, and why they should be accepted?
b.      Do you explicitly explain how your premises lead to your conclusions?
4.       Do you respond to any objections or counterarguments? Do you respond to questions that readers might have about your arguments?
5.       Does your paper have a conclusion that reviews what you discussed and what you argued for?
6.       Organization: could your paper be outlined to show its structure? Is it well organized?
7.       Paragraphs: does each paragraph focus on one, and only one, topic?
8.       Writing: is your paper written in plain, ordinary English? Do you use ‘fancy’ words – words that people wouldn’t use in ordinary conversation – only if it is absolutely necessary?
9.       Are there any grammatical and spelling errors?
10.   Are your sentences short and clear? Did you look closely at each sentence to ensure it makes sense?
11.   Did you proofread?
12.   Did you get someone else to read your paper and give you helpful feedback for revision?
13.   Did you revise your paper?
This is available here:

No comments: