Reference no: EM131809369

ASSIGNMENT 1

First, find a brief online editorial or argumentative written piece (around 500 words) or video clip (2-3 minutes) that takes a stand on a moral issue (for example, assisted suicide, abortion, capital punishment, war, terrorism, sweatshops, the use of racist stereotypes in sports team brands, the right to dress in accordance with religious requirements, etc.). If you are unsure about your choice, check with me.

Second, carefully read the article or watch the video clip, and identify, as clearly as possible, the position or standpoint that the author is taking on the moral issue. In other words, identify the main claim or conclusion of the piece.

Third, identify the reasons or premises offered in support of the author's main claim. The conclusion plus supporting premises constitute the author's argument.

Fourth, critically analyze the argument, by answering two questions:

1. Do the premises offer conclusive support for the conclusion, or is it the case that the conclusion could still be false even if all of the premises are true?

This is the validity question. A (deductive) argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for it to have all true premises and a false conclusion at the same time.

2. Are all of the premises in fact true? This is the truth question. The premises will likely contain descriptive statements and normative statements, or factual statements and moral value statements.

When considering whether or not the normative or moral value statements are true or false, please consider any and all relevant moral theories we have considered in the course (maybe the statements presupposes ethical egoism, or utilitarianism, or Kantian ethics, or some other theory or idea from the course - make this explicit).

If (1) the argument is invalid, or if (2) the argument is valid but the truth of one or more of its premises is false, then the argument is unsound and can be rejected.

If the argument is valid and all of its premises are in fact true, then the argument is sound, which means that all rational beings are required to accept its conclusion as true.

Your assignment should include the following:

A working link to the written piece or video clip you have selected.

A clear, thorough summary of the argument in the written piece or video clip.

A critical analysis of the argument, which clearly and thoroughly indicates whether or not (1) the argument is valid, (2) all of the premises of the argument are true, and (3) the argument is sound.

SHORT WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2

Answer one and only one of the questions below in no less than 350 words (you may go over the word limit but you will lose marks if you are under the word limit).

This assignment is to be submitted electronically, in Blackboard. I will set up an assignment dropbox item under Assignments, where you will be able to submit your writing assignment. Attach your assignment in .doc or .docx format. Assignments submitted in any other manner - i.e., as email attachments or hard copies - will not be marked.

AVOIDING PLAGIARISM

Citing material from the course readings should take the form of parenthetical, in-text citations, which include the name of the author. If you cite material from other sources, do the same thing, but also include the full citation at the end of your assignment under the heading "Works Cited."

The full citation must contain the name of the author, the name of the work, the location of the publishing company, the name of the publishing company, the date of publication, and the page number (for the full citation of online sources, simply include a working link under "Works Cited").

For this assignment, however, you do not have to cite any sources beyond the course material.

QUESTION 1

Do you agree with the psychological egoist's claim that all human behaviour is fundamentally self interested? Defend your answer either way, using one or two examples to illustrate your position.

QUESTION 2

How do social contract theorists argue for the claim that it is in your self-interest to follow the rules upon which cooperative living is based? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not. Your answer should include a discussion of the prisoner's dilemma.

QUESTION 4

Most ethical theories stress that impartiality is important to acting ethically. Why do feminist ethicists deny this? Do you think that they are correct to do so?