Buy ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee
Note: Every paper is crafted by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
Syracuse University Utilitarianism Theory Discussion
Check before you submit. Get Turnitin Score Report in 15 Minutes.
Don't risk the 'Red' score. Get the exact same Turnitin report your professor uses. Join 50,000+ students who submitted their essays with confidence this semester.
Paper 2 Instructions Professional Ethics Spring 2020 Topic: What is the best theory to use in order to determine moral responsibility within your profession? Your second essay should pick up where your first essay left off. It’s one thing to argue what is necessary to be an ethical professional. It’s another for you to decide what kind of ethical theory should inform your decision-making process. For this essay, create an explanation of, and argument for, what you think is the best theory to use in order to make ethical choices as someone working in your particular profession: • Given the work people in your profession do, what is the best way to make an ethical decision? When making the argument, you should be prepared to make use of ethical theory in answering the question – you should primarily stick to one of the following that we discussed in class (Utilitarianism (Mill), Deontology (Kant), Virtue (Aristotle), and Social Contract/Justice (Rawls)). If you want to employ a different theory, or if you want to mix theories, please check with me first. In constructing your argument, you should focus on producing the following sections for the essay: • Section one: Explain how your chosen theory works, and what the theory’s assumptions are about what is important to consider (in evaluating human nature and in determining ethical actions) – you need to demonstrate that YOU understand and can explain the theory (consider using hypothetical examples to show the theory in action). • Section Two: Argue/defend your choice in terms of your profession, by demonstrating how the ethical reasoning of your theory connects to the requirements of your profession. You should show how the theory you have chosen is compatible with your code of ethics (that is, you can show that the result of reasoning through the theory produces an outcome that is consistent with what a specific provision from your code of ethics requires). o This section should include the use of a profession-relevant hypothetical scenario, showing why would your ethical theory be effective in offering a solution to the dilemma compatible with professional expectations. • Section Three: Explain a different ethical theory that does not offer a valuable approach. After briefly explaining how the theory works (demonstrating that you understand how the theory works), explain why it offers a challenge to your approach, and show why the theory you have chosen does a better job. Importantly, you will be presenting an argument as to your position and those of your challenger. As such, you must offer reasons why you hold your positions, and you must support claims about your theorist and challenger through careful appeal to what your respective philosophers actually wrote. Claims you make about a particular philosopher must have textual support arguments lacking the necessary textual support (through quoted, cited reference to relevant textual passages) will not earn a passing grade. Consulting secondary sources is not prohibited, BUT you will be assessed on how well you articulate your understanding (not how well you can quote others explaining their understanding). See “Writing Philosophy Papers Guide” in Blackboard for help in structuring arguments. Paper Specifications: Paper 2 Instructions • • • Professional Ethics Spring 2020 Follow APA formatting (for heading, spacing, margins, page numbers, etc.) Provide in-text citations and a references page. Should be 4-6 double-spaced, type-written pages (excluding reference and title page). ON PLAGIARISM: You will be tempted to consult outside sources in your preparation for this paper. While fine, remember that you are demonstrating YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the ethical systems. So, you should be consulting the original material that you were presented, and quoting primarily from that. You should also make it clear when you are offering a recap of what you learned from some other source – if you are presenting ideas that are not your own, but have been gathered from another source, and you do not cite that source (even if you put the ideas in your own words), that is plagiarism. If your paper, however, consists primarily of citations from other sources, you are not doing the paper correctly – you need to take the time to reflect and analyze the system, and demonstrate what you understand, more than anything. This is not easy, and takes time. If you don’t understand the theory, then you need to fix that prior to turning in your paper. One way to try to fix that would involve speaking with me. Paper 2 Instructions Professional Ethics Spring 2020 Topic: What is the best theory to use in order to determine moral responsibility within your profession? Your second essay should pick up where your first essay left off. It’s one thing to argue what is necessary to be an ethical professional. It’s another for you to decide what kind of ethical theory should inform your decision-making process. For this essay, create an explanation of, and Commented [GW1]: While this suggests a continuity to your essays, make sure that this essay has a title page, an introduction, thesis statement, dedicated conclusion, and reference page. argument for, what you think is the best theory to use in order to make ethical choices as someone working in your particular profession: • Given the work people in your profession do, what is the best way to make an ethical decision? When making the argument, you should be prepared to make use of ethical theory in answering the question – you should primarily stick to one of the following that we discussed in Commented [GW2]: The first most important element of this paper is to identify the theory that you think is best – you should choose between these four: Utilitarianism (Mill), Deontology (Kant), Virtue Ethics (Aristotle), and Social Contract Theory/Justice (Rawls). class (Utilitarianism (Mill), Deontology (Kant), Virtue (Aristotle), and Social Contract/Justice (Rawls)). If you want to employ a different theory, or if you want to mix theories, please check with me first. In constructing your argument, you should focus on producing the following sections for the essay: • Section one: Explain how your chosen theory works, and what the theory’s assumptions are about what is important to consider (in evaluating human nature and in determining Commented [GW3]: I used the term “section” here to indicate that this could involve multiple paragraphs. In fact, each section SHOULD involve multiple paragraphs. ethical actions) – you need to demonstrate that YOU understand and can explain the theory (consider using hypothetical examples to show the theory in action). • Section Two: Argue/defend your choice in terms of your profession, by demonstrating how the ethical reasoning of your theory connects to the requirements of your profession. You should show how the theory you have chosen is compatible with your code of ethics (that is, you can show that the result of reasoning through the theory produces an outcome that is consistent with what a specific provision from your code of ethics requires). o This section should include the use of a profession-relevant hypothetical scenario, showing why would your ethical theory be effective in offering a solution to the dilemma compatible with professional expectations. Commented [GW4]: The FIRST THING you should do is explain how the theory works, and why the theory emphasizes what it does. The standard you should work toward is, would a relatively smart friend of yours who doesn’t know the theory understand how it works after you explain it here? Don’t assume too much – explain everything. Remember, too, that you are arguing – you should make claims about the theory, and then support those claims with explained quotes from the text. Commented [GW5]: This section supports your argument that the theory works with your profession. You do this by showing that the theory produces guidance/ethical choices that is compatible with your professional ethical obligations. You need to compare the outcome of the theory with your professional code of ethics. Commented [GW6]: The best way to demonstrate this compatibility is with a scenario that relates to your field. Show what the ethical theory would require, and then show how that outcome is compatible with a specific provision from your code of ethics. Paper 2 Instructions • Professional Ethics Spring 2020 Section Three: Explain a different ethical theory that does not offer a valuable approach. After briefly explaining how the theory works (demonstrating that you understand how the theory works), explain why it offers a challenge to your approach, and show why the theory you have chosen does a better job. Importantly, you will be presenting an argument as to your position and those of your challenger. As such, you must offer reasons why you hold your positions, and you must support claims about Commented [GW7]: This is the last section of the argument. You want to show that the theory you’ve chosen is BETTER than an alternative theory. You will need to explain this competing theory and then show (ideally using the same scenario) that this theory does not offer as good an outcome. your theorist and challenger through careful appeal to what your respective philosophers actually wrote. Claims you make about a particular philosopher must have textual support arguments lacking the necessary textual support (through quoted, cited reference to relevant textual passages) will not earn a passing grade. Consulting secondary sources is not prohibited, BUT you will be assessed on how well you articulate your understanding (not how well you can quote others explaining their understanding). Commented [GW8]: For all claims – remember that you should support claims you make about your theory, about your professional code of ethics, and about your competing theory. See “Writing Philosophy Papers Guide” in Blackboard for help in structuring arguments. Paper Specifications: • Follow APA formatting (for heading, spacing, margins, page numbers, etc.) • Provide in-text citations and a references page. • Should be 4-6 double-spaced, type-written pages (excluding reference and title page). ON PLAGIARISM: You will be tempted to consult outside sources in your preparation for this paper. While fine, remember that you are demonstrating YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the ethical systems. So, you should be consulting the original material that you were presented, and quoting primarily from that. You should also make it clear when you are offering a recap of what you learned from some other source – if you are presenting ideas that are not your own, but have been gathered from another source, and you do not cite that source (even if you put the ideas in your own words), that is plagiarism. If your paper, however, consists primarily of citations from other sources, you are not doing the paper correctly – you need to take the time to reflect and analyze the system, and demonstrate what you understand, more than anything. This is not easy, and takes time. If you don’t understand the theory, then you need to fix that prior to turning in your paper. One way to try to fix that would involve speaking with me. Commented [GW9]: I added a link here so that you can consult an authoritative source for formatting questions. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm The Project Gutenberg EBook of Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net Title: Utilitarianism Author: John Stuart Mill Release Date: February 22, 2004 [EBook #11224] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UTILITARIANISM *** Produced by Julie Barkley, Garrett Alley and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team. UTILITARIANISM BY JOHN STUART MILL REPRINTED FROM ‘FRASER’S MAGAZINE’ SEVENTH EDITION LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1879 1 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 2 Our moral faculty, according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty; and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for perception of it in the concrete. The intuitive, no less than what may be termed the inductive, school of ethics, insists on the necessity of general laws. They both agree that the morality of an individual action is not a question of direct perception, but of the application of a law to an individual case. They recognise also, to a great extent, the same moral laws; but differ as to their evidence, and the source from which they derive their authority. According to the one opinion, the principles of morals are evident à priori, requiring nothing to command assent, except that the meaning of the terms be understood. According to the other doctrine, right and wrong, as well as truth and falsehood, are questions of observation and experience. But both hold equally that morality must be deduced from principles; and the intuitive school affirm as strongly as the inductive, that there is a science of morals. Yet they seldom attempt to make out a list of the à priori principles which are to serve as the premises of the science; still more rarely do they make any effort to reduce those various principles to one first principle, or common ground of obligation. They either assume the ordinary precepts of morals as of à priori authority, or they lay down as the common groundwork of those maxims, some generality much less obviously authoritative than the maxims themselves, and which has never succeeded in gaining popular acceptance. Yet to support their pretensions there ought either to be some one fundamental principle or law, at the root of all morality, or if there be several, there should be a determinate order of precedence among them; and the one principle, or the rule for deciding between the various principles when they conflict, ought to be self-evident. To inquire how far the bad effects of this deficiency have been mitigated in practice, or to what extent the moral beliefs of mankind have been vitiated or made uncertain by the absence of any distinct recognition of an ultimate standard, would imply a complete survey and criticism of past and present ethical doctrine. It would, however, be easy to show that whatever steadiness or consistency these moral beliefs have attained, has been mainly due to the tacit influence of a standard not recognised. Although the nonexistence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration of men’s actual sentiments, still, as men’s sentiments, both of favour and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority. Nor is there any school of thought which refuses to admit that the influence of actions on happiness is a most material and even predominant consideration in many of the details of morals, however unwilling to acknowledge it as the fundamental principle of morality, and the source of moral http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 3 obligation. I might go much further, and say that to all those à priori moralists who deem it necessary to argue at all, utilitarian arguments are indispensable. It is not my present purpose to criticise these thinkers; but I cannot help referring, for illustration, to a systematic treatise by one of the most illustrious of them, the Metaphysics of Ethics, by Kant. This remarkable man, whose system of thought will long remain one of the landmarks in the history of philosophical speculation, does, in the treatise in question, lay down an universal first principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this:—’So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings.’ But when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. _________________ On the present occasion, I shall, without further discussion of the other theories, attempt to contribute something towards the understanding and appreciation of the Utilitarian or Happiness theory, and towards such proof as it is susceptible of. It is evident that this cannot be proof in the ordinary and popular meaning of the term. Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good? The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that it produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things which are in themselves good, and that whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected, but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof. We are not, however, to infer that its acceptance or rejection must depend on blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a larger meaning of the word proof, in which this question is as amenable to it as any other of the disputed questions of philosophy. The subject is within the cognizance of the rational faculty; and neither does that faculty deal with it solely in the way of intuition. Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof. _________________ http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 4 CHAPTER II. WHAT UTILITARIANISM IS. A passing remark is all that needs be given to the ignorant blunder of supposing that those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong, use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure, and that too in its grossest form, is another of the common charges against utilitarianism: and, as has been pointedly remarked by an able writer, the same sort of persons, and often the very same persons, denounce the theory “as impracticably dry when the word utility precedes the word pleasure, and as too practicably voluptuous when the word pleasure precedes the word utility.” Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things. Yet the common herd, including the herd of writers, not only in newspapers and periodicals, but in books of weight and pretension, are perpetually falling into this shallow mistake. Having caught up the word utilitarian, while knowing nothing whatever about it but its sound, they habitually express by it the rejection, or the neglect, of pleasure in some of its forms; of beauty, of ornament, or of amusement. Nor is the term thus ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, but occasionally in compliment; as though it implied superiority to frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment. And this perverted use is the only one in which the word is popularly known, and the one from which the new generation are acquiring their sole notion of its meaning. Those who introduced the word, but who had for many years discontinued it as a distinctive appellation, may well feel themselves called upon to resume it, if by doing so they can hope to contribute anything towards rescuing it from this utter degradation. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.[…] _________________ http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 5 Now, such a theory of life excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French, and English assailants. When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian elements require to be included. But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect; of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation. It must be admitted, however, that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, &c., of the former—that is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they might have taken the other, and, as it may be called, higher ground, with entire consistency. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone. If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 6 of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account. Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he, for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him. If they ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes. A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and is certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness; we may attribute it to pride, a name which is given indiscriminately to some of the most and to some of the least estimable feelings of which mankind are capable; we may refer it to the love of liberty and personal independence, an appeal to which was with the Stoics one of the most effective means for the inculcation of it; to the love of power, or to the love of excitement, both of which do really enter into and contribute to it: but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them. Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness-that the superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior-confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness, and content. It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly-endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 7 know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. _________________ It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good. It may be further objected, that many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness. But I do not believe that those who undergo this very common change, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasures in preference to the higher. I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one, they have already become incapable of the other. Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether any one who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures, ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower; though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both. From this verdict of the only competent judges, I apprehend there can be no appeal. On a question which is the best worth having of two pleasures, or which of two modes of existence is the most grateful to the feelings, apart from its moral attributes and from its consequences, the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both, or, if they differ, that of the majority among them, must be admitted as final. And there needs be the less hesitation to accept this judgment respecting the quality of pleasures, since there is no other tribunal to be referred to even on the question of quantity. What means are there of determining which is the acutest of two pains, or the intensest of two pleasurable sensations, except the general suffrage of those who are familiar with both? Neither pains nor pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. What is there to decide whether a particular pleasure is worth purchasing at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm 8 the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings and judgment of the experienced? When, therefore, those feelings and judgment declare the pleasures derived from the higher faculties to be preferable in kind, apart from the question of intensity, to those of which the animal nature, disjoined from the higher faculties, is susceptible, they are entitled on this subject to the same regard. I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of Utility or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous. According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, as above explained, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation. Adapted from Prof. Jack Russell Weinstein, University of North Dakota Some Basic Paper-Writing Tips: Audience – you should write the paper with a specific audience in mind. Not me, but rather someone who has not taken a philosophy class before, but who otherwise shares your level of education. You can think of a roommate, or a sibling, or a friend. Write your essay in such a way that you explain your ideas clearly and provide your chain of reasoning – how you arrived at the point you did. If you had your target audience read this paper (and you should – see below), the reader should understand the argument you are making, and the philosophy you are explaining. Definitions – related to your audience above, any time you use a term or a concept that has a special meaning (either to you or especially to the philosopher you are using), YOU SHOULD DEFINE THE TERM/CONCEPT so that your audience member doesn’t have to look it up. You want to do that work for your reader. The same goes for quotations – when you offer a quote from your source material (and you should have quotes to support your claims), you should explain the meaning and importance of that quote in your own words, immediately following the quoted material. The Purpose of Paragraphs – paragraphs should have a specific role in the argument. You will be making one particular and important point in each paragraph. Don’t let paragraphs be very long and try to do too much – on average, you should have at least 2-3 paragraphs per page. And make sure that the purpose of those paragraphs is stated in a TOPIC SENTENCE (that is, every paragraph should start with a sentence indicating what the paragraph is about – and the content of the paragraph should be restricted to what the topic sentence says it is about). Additionally, your essay should have a dedicated introduction with a thesis statement (think of this paragraph as the topic sentence for the entire essay). And you should have a dedicated conclusion where you sum up the argument you just made. The Relationship of Paragraphs to Each Other – you should move from point to point logically. Build your argument, using ideas discussed in previous paragraphs to further your discussions in later paragraphs. To help this connection, USE TRANSITIONS between all paragraphs. Make it clear why you are going from one point/paragraph to the next point/paragraph. Editing (Find Someone You Trust to be Honest) – your paper should go through multiple revisions. The first you should do for yourself, once you’ve gotten the rough argument sketched out in your essay. The second should be done by someone you trust – someone who will tell you when he/she is confused, or can’t understand something you’ve written. The third should be you again – before you turn in the paper, you should proofread the final version (and ideally read it aloud to yourself to make sure it sounds like you intended it to sound). These three revisions should be the minimum. Adapted from Prof. Jack Russell Weinstein, University of North Dakota The Outline of a Paper (for a paper comparing two philosophers): Consider the outline below as a guideline (not a requirement), especially for those who have never written any kind of argumentative paper before, where clarify of presentation is an important component of the essay’s quality. Please note that the sections do not necessarily represent paragraphs – you may have to provide multiple paragraphs to cover the relevant material. And also note that you should not use headers to divide sections – just let the essay flow. I. Introduction. A. State and explain the purpose of the paper. 1. Define all of the technical terms in the paper topic/question. B. State and explain the philosophical problem. C. State what your conclusion will be. The introduction is very important for setting the stage. Don’t start out with biographical information about the philosopher, or with a definition from a dictionary (this is rarely helpful anywhere in the paper since the definition the philosopher gives is almost certainly different from the definition provided by the dictionary). To begin with either of these methods is just a form of stalling. Start out by discussing and explaining the main purpose of the paper. Explain all of the technical terms in the main question, and explain how this question relates to a larger philosophical problem (i.e. How are we to live? How do we know things? How are we to treat others?). Also, state the conclusion of the paper in the introduction as well – you are providing the reader with a guide to what will be in the paper. You aren’t trying to surprise anyone, just convince them. II. Explanation of Position One. (The First Philosopher) A. Summarize the position in the philosopher’s words. 1. Define all terms. 2. Explain these terms and the basic position in your own words. 3. Include quotes to support your claims – if you write that a philosopher holds a particular position, then prove it through reference to what the philosopher actually wrote. Then explain the quote in your own words. Importantly, ALL QUOTES SHOULD HAVE A SIGNAL PHRASE (where you connect the quote to your own sentence. For example: When Hume discusses matters of fact, he uses the sun as an example, when he writes, “That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition […] than it will rise” (1910). [In the sentence that follows, you would explain what the quote means]). B. Offer an overview of the position in your words. This section is very difficult because it requires that you summarize a large text in a very short amount of time. It is hard to balance the details with the main idea. Therefore, it is helpful to provide the details in the main summary then end this section with a general narrative of the position in your own words. Try to tie- up all the loose pieces of the summary in this final paragraph. III. Explanation of Position Two. (The Second Philosopher) A. Summarize the position in the philosopher’s words. 1. Define all terms. 2. Explain these terms and the basic position in your own words. Adapted from Prof. Jack Russell Weinstein, University of North Dakota 3. Include quotes to support your claims – if you write that a philosopher holds a particular position, then prove it through reference to what the philosopher actually wrote. Then explain the quote in your own words. Importantly, ALL QUOTES SHOULD HAVE A SIGNAL PHRASE (where you connect the quote to your own sentence. For example: When Hume discusses matters of fact, he uses the sun as an example, when he writes, “That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition […] than it will rise” (1910). [In the sentence that follows, you would explain what the quote means]). B. Offer an overview of the position in your words. This section is identical to the previous section but refers to a different philosopher. Remember to focus on the same themes as in section II. That way, the reader will be able to see the similarities and the differences of the two positions. IV. Compare and Contrast the two positions. A. Identify common themes. 1. Point out differences in argument. 2. Point out where two different words actually mean the same thing and where two of the same words have different meanings. B. Compare conclusions. 1. Point out how conclusions differ and how they are the same. There are two important difficulties in this section. The first is that philosophers who have radically different theories may use different words to say the same thing or the same words to mean different things. For example, “Good” means radically different things for both Aristotle and Hobbes, yet both use that terms repeatedly. Additionally, Hobbes uses the term “natural condition” whereas Locke uses the term “State of Nature” but they both mean the same thing (with different characteristics). You should make sure to point this out to your readers. The second difficulty is knowing how much to explain. When you compare and contrast, don’t assume that the reader can see the differences you can see. Be very explicit about how the two theories differ even if it seems obvious to you. V. Pick your position and defend it. A. State which position you agree with. 1. Remind the reader of the main idea behind the position. B. Defend this position. 1. Explain why you have chosen this position. In most papers that require you to compare and contrast two philosophers, you are required to choose that side which you believe is correct. It is not enough to explain that you agree with it, you must also explain why you agree with it. Provide examples. Show what details attracted you to the position. Provide evidence as to how history, current events, or your own experiences conform to this position. VI. Criticize the position you have chosen (from the perspective of the other position). A. Remind the reader of the other position. B. Assume the persona of your opponent and criticize your own defense. Adapted from Prof. Jack Russell Weinstein, University of North Dakota Philosophy teaches students to “think critically”. There is great debate as to the meaning of this phrase, but it is likely that one of the essential components of critical thinking is being aware of the weaknesses of our own positions and being able to figure out where others will disagree with you. Section VI requires that you do this. It requires that you defend the position you disagreed with and show how your opponent would criticize your beliefs. Point out the weaknesses of your defense. Explain how a different point of view may shed new light on your position that might make it less convincing. VII. Re-defend your original position in light of the new criticism. Don’t end with a criticism of your own position. Here you can now criticize the critique that you wrote of your own position. Explain why you still agree with your original position and explain why the criticism of your original position need not be convincing. Make sure that this second defense is addressing the criticism and not simply reasserting your original position. VIII. Conclusion. A. Briefly restate the purpose of the paper. B. Briefly restate the main philosophical argument. C. Briefly restate your position. D. Wrap up any loose end and end with a future goal. The conclusion cannot contain any new information. It can only restate or reorganize that which has already been said. It is still useful because it reminds the reader or that which they read and of that which you concluded. Don’t underestimate the importance of the conclusion, but, at the same time, keep it short. A paragraph should be enough.
Syracuse University Utilitarianism Theory Discussion
TOO MANY ASSIGNMENTS? Let our professional Essay Writers help you!
The art of writing is far from simple; even experienced writers can face challenges. This led to the inception of WriterCentre.com. Comprising a team of writers, we offer comprehensive essay, dissertation, and thesis writing services to students. Our mission at WriterCentre.com is to provide unparalleled quality to clients pursuing undergraduate, Masters, or PhD studies.
Our writers are committed to assisting you through every project phase, from conception to completion. Whether you require topic selection or comprehensive project support, our writers work diligently to ensure your essay, thesis, dissertation, or other projects are delivered punctually. Adhering to your instructions is second nature to our highly trained writers. We understand the stress of impending deadlines, having experienced it ourselves. Hence, we strive to meet even the most challenging timeframes. Do not hesitate to reach out, even when the timeline appears insurmountable. Your academic journey is our concern.
We write essays from scratch and within your selected time frame.
