-
- QUESTION
Essay 2
Follow the instructions given below carefully.
Write an essay that focuses on one of the arguments found in any of the readings assigned for
modules 4 – 7.
1. Submit your essay as an attachment. Use a word document file extension of some sort (rtf, doc, docx,
odt, etc.) do not submit a pdf file.
2. Do not quote or cite (or plagiarize) the PowerPoints from the course—they should only be used to help
you understand the material. All citations and quotations should come directly from the readings.
3. The essay should be 3 to 4 pages.
4. Do not use outside sources—only use the readings that were assigned for the course—do not go out
on the internet and look up sources.
Your essay must follow this format:
1. Begin with an introductory paragraph that a) presents your thesis; b) identifies which text and
author you will discuss, and c) prepares the reader for the organization of your paper. Your
THESIS is a clear and exact statement of the claim you will support in your essay.
a. Thesis Statement: You must tell the reader specifically what position you will
defend.
Example of a thesis statement:
“Carl Cohen’s claim that reason is required to justify the extension of moral
consideration is flawed. One’s capacity to suffer, should be the only requirement
necessary to justify the extension of moral consideration.”
2. The body of the paper should consist in a focused discussion of the author’s argument from your
chosen reading. Your paper should provide a clear exposition of one of the arguments offered by
the specific author from the text you focus on. Following the exposition, give one or two
objections to the author’s claims. Discuss your objection(s) carefully. Provide the strongest
possible counter-argument or counterexample. Be sure that your objection(s) are specifically
linked to the arguments given by the author whose work you have exposited. Next, offer possible
responses to your objections. In other words, present possible responses/arguments against your
original objections. Then offer replies to these responses in an effort to show that the original
objection (your argument) still stands. In other words, offer reason to believe that one should not
accept the responses to your original objection(s).
3. The conclusion should not simply repeat what you have already said in the body of the paper. The
concluding remarks may reiterate briefly the structure of your foregoing argument and the
conclusion(s) you have reached. But, crucially, concluding remarks should say something more
than this. Are there still further, related questions that you have not addressed? Does your
discussion have an important implication for the topic, for philosophical theory, for life in
general? In other words, try to show how your work in this particular essay reaches out to other
topics of interest or paves the way for further argument or analysis. Remember that philosophy
papers rarely solve problems once and for all time, so resist the temptation to overstate or
exaggerate your conclusions. It is reasonable, even admirable, to acknowledge the limitations of
your discussion in your concluding remarks.
4. Quote and cite the text to support your discussion (Footnotes or parenthetical citations are
preferred). All verbatim quotation must use quotation marks. Citations are also required for
paraphrases of the text. The goal is to point the reader to the appropriate passages of text where the
claims are made. Use quotations selectively; most of the paper should be written in your own
words. Use a works cited page.
In a nutshell:
1. Tell the reader what text you will discuss, identify the specific author you will address, offer a
thesis statement (the position you will defend), and give a brief overview of how the essay
will proceed.
2. Explicate the specific author’s argument from the text you have chosen—explain the
argument in detail, walk the reader through the argument step by step.
3. Offer objections to the argument—point out problems with the author’s argument, and offer
your own argument in an effort to justify your claim that the author’s argument contains these
problems. Do not ignore the author’s counter arguments—for example, if the author addresses
a particular objection in their piece, and offers (a response) a reason to think these objections
are not problematic for their position, then be sure that you do not simply offer that very same
objection without addressing why their response does not work.
4. Examine possible responses to your objections—discuss possible weaknesses/problems with
the argument you present in section three. What sorts of issues might one raise against your
argument? Note the weaknesses and/or limitations with your original argument.
5. Offer replies to these responses—produce another argument that offers an effective rebuttal to
these responses, and shows that these weaknesses do not destroy your original argument (the
goal is to produce a dialogue).
6. Conclusion (see above)
* Be sure to read “How to Write a Philosophy Paper” in Blackboard.
OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
· You need not do additional research. Focus on the essays we have read, or any of the
others in Blackboard (provided they were assigned and we have discussed them).
· Your work must be your own, original writing. There are severe penalties for plagiarism
and cheating. See the syllabus for details.
· Your paper should be double-spaced in 10 or 12-point font. Use 1-1.25 inch left and right
margins. Do not use a cover page.
· Spell-check your paper. Proofread and edit your work to check for mistakes that
computer programs cannot catch.
· At the top of the first page provide the following information single spaced:
Student Name
PHI 1010: Introduction to Philosophy
Date
· Give your paper a title. DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE!
· Quote and cite the text to support your discussion. (footnotes or parenthetical
citations) All verbatim quotation must use quotation marks. Citations are also
required for paraphrases of the text. The goal is to point the reader to the
appropriate passages of text where the claims are made. Use quotations selectively;
most of the paper should be written in your own words. Use a works cited page.
· The exposition should provide a clear, accurate, precise, and selective account of the
author’s position.
CLEAR: Write in complete, grammatical sentences. Organize your thoughts.
ACCURATE: Give a fair and reasonable representation of the author’s position.
PRECISE: Avoid offering vague claims and mere generalities. Make your discussion
detailed, specific, and focused on the exact claims the author gives in support of the
particular arguments you will examine.
SELECTIVE: In a short paper you cannot cover all of the arguments or claims the
author gives. Select only those ideas, reasons, arguments that are directly relevant to your
discussion.
· As a guideline, your first, introductory paragraph should not be more than ½ a page.
The exposition should take 1-2 pages and the presentation of your objection(s) and
response(s) should take 1-2 pages.
NOTE: This paper assignment focuses on exposition AND on critical thinking. The first
goal is to demonstrate that you have a solid understanding of the text, that you can explain
specific arguments from the text, and that you can appropriately cite and quote the text in
support of your discussion. The second goal is to critically evaluate the text. In formulating
your objection(s) to the text, you are attempting to provide reasons why we might reject the
author’s argument or claims. These reasons should identify specific problems with the
author’s claims, not merely a general difference of opinion or view. The reasons you offer in
formulating your objection should be reasonable, clear, intelligent, and as convincing as
possible.1
Plagiarism
Your essays will be run through a plagiarism checker. If you plagiarize an essay you
will receive a 0% for the essay, and may be failed for the course. There are no
second chances. If you are unclear about what constitutes plagiarism, then please
contact your professor prior to submitting your assignment.
Write an essay that focuses on one of the arguments found in any of the readings assigned for
modules 4 – 7.
reading:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdfhttps://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.amazonaws.com/5dea81e905b4f/1775661?response-cache-control=private%2C%20max-age%3D21600&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%2720191_PHI1010_Sartre%2520-%2520Existentialism.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200515T180000Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAZH6WM4PLTYPZRQMY%2F20200515%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=72f03acbcceba0724526a4c07c5121146bf9058cb314ba94b6cdf25981770efa
https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.amazonaws.com/5dea81e905b4f/608870?response-cache-control=private%2C%20max-age%3D21600&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%2720191_PHI1010_Holbach%2520-%2520The%2520Illusion%2520of%2520Free%2520Will.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200515T180000Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAZH6WM4PLTYPZRQMY%2F20200515%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=dc39acc5af34b9c575ad981612808a52e052044a2added343033f33f6de4032f
| Subject | Essay Writing | Pages | 5 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Peter Singer “All Animals Are Equal”
Peter Singer, in All animals are Equal, advocates for animal rights. In what is overly an animal liberation argument, Singer insists that non-human animals deserve to receive equal consideration as men and women. Primarily, the debate about equality continues to make headlines in the 21st century with feminist movements. Ideally, the current experiences are a replica of early movements such as the black liberation movement of the 1960s. Ideally, the movements yielded positive outcomes as blacks, Spanish, and other minority groups acquired equal consideration with other dominant races. It is on this premise that Peter Singer believes that sentience gives non-human animals the right to be considered in the same perspective as human animals. However, Peter Singer’s claim that non-human animals should be considered equal to humans is flawed as sentience cannot be used as the only requirement to entitle any creature equal consideration of its interests when there is no succinct definition of interest.
Peter Singer argues that speciesism is not right. In this regard, he feels that consideration of the equality of both human and non-human animals should not be based on rationality. As such, equality should not signify similarity. Thus, for both humans and non-humans to be considered equal, they do not need to be similar. Ideally, Singer shows that there are differences in various species, which should also be considered in their rights. For instance, he states that “women need a right to abortion, which is not needed by men” (Singer, 1974, p. 148). As such, it is meaningless to base equality consideration on men receiving a right to factors such as abortion. Similarly, non-human animals should not be perceived based on the fact that they cannot speak or vote. Instead, they should be considered equal in areas that are vital to them, specifically the ability to experience suffrage or enjoy.
Singer proposes a solution to racism and sexism, which he sees as a proper approach to ensuring equality between both human and non-human animals. In this regard, he offers that one should not look at how different species are from a factual perspective. In this regard, non-human animals should not be seen as being given rights. Instead, they should be treated rightly. Therefore, if any animal is different, then there are also differences in interests. For instance, women and men are different in several aspects. However, it is not absurd when females call for equality because, despite their variation with males, they have interests which they need to be covered. It just happens that some of these interests are similar to those of men. Singer also views the lack of consideration of non-human animals when discussing the concept of equality as an act of discrimination. From his standpoint, “the view that trivial or rather specific interests of some species outweigh those of others is a mistake (Singer, 1974, p. 151). Overly, Singer advocates for the liberation of all animals, including humans.
Objections to Singer’s Views
Singer’s main agreement for equality between non-human and human animals is that since all of them experience pain and have interests, they should have the same rights. Even though this perception may be sound, it does not determine the exact meaning of interests. Primarily, Singer seems to utilize a false equivalence between interests and desires, thereby leading to a conflict between facts and opinions. Therefore, the view that animals and humans are the same is not right because the concept of interest is not properly determined. Principally, what Singer refers to as interests of animals are actual desires. For instance, animal desire to eat, not to be killed or die, and to exist peacefully in their habitats. Notably, these desires are also shared by humans. Thus, just like animals, things that are not the desires and preferences of humans happen to them. For instance, they die, sometimes they are killed, and some go hungry, while in some scenarios, they lose their habitats. Primarily, these elements are conceived as desires by Singer and not as interests. Therefore, they cannot be used to determine discrimination between human and non-human animals.
The argument by Singer that speciesism is not right contradicts his own views about having equality between human and non-human animals based on their interests. Primarily, Singer feels that regarding each species differently is wrong. However, he again utilizes the same variation among species as the main reason why non-human animals should be perceived equally with humans by not looking at the factual differences between them. Therefore, it is apparent that differences exist between humans and animals. As such, they should be perceived differently.
The main counter-arguments against not viewing humans and non-humans equally is that there is a need to perceive the interests of all species similarly. In rebutting this counter-argument, humans have not failed to support the animal’s interests at any time. For instance, there are efforts to conserve forests, while illegal hunting or poaching is prohibited. Therefore, animals’ interests have been catered for. Moreover, any species that has interest endures both positive and negative things. Therefore, it is usually sometimes to experience pain as it also happens to humans.
Conclusively, Peter Singer’s main argument is that there should be equal consideration of the interest of both human and non-human animals. The perspective is based on the rejection of speciesism, which is the view that the interests of particular species outweigh those of others. Moreover, Singer advocates for equality of all animals due to the sentience consideration. However, these perspectives are flawed because Singer fails to offer a succinct definition of interests meaning that he could be referring to preferences and desires. Moreover, anything that has interests experiences suffering and other emotions. Thus, going forward, it is ideal to determine the difference between interests and desires, as this will offer a better foundation for Singer’s argument.
References
|
Singer, P. (1974). All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange, 5(1), 6.
Appendix
|
|