Introduction to Ethics
Paper Topic
Due Date: The paper is due on or before the beginning of class on Monday, November 16th.
Length:
You are required to write an outline for the paper that is 1 full page in length minimum to 2
pages maximum (1.5 line spacing). The point of writing an outline is to organize your ideas
before you write in the form of an essay. That way, you will be able to spot premises that are
out of place or missing from your reconstruction. Be sure to work through all three parts of
the assignment in your outline.
The paper should be from 5 full pages minimum to 6 pages maximum. All papers must be
typed and double-spaced (indented quotes, etc. should be single-spaced if you use them).
There is no penalty for turning in a paper that exceeds the maximum page limit--so long as it
is concise, well written and edited.
Mechanics: When writing the paper, you may feel a temptation to spend most of your time
reconstructing the arguments of Kant and Mill and very little time on your own argument.
Don’t fall prey to this temptation. All three parts of the assignment are equally important so
you should devote roughly equal time and space to all three parts in your paper. The quality
of your paper as a piece of writing (spelling, punctuation, style, grammar, and--especially-clarity) will count in the determination of your grade. Essential to expressing your ideas
effectively is writing clearly and with precision. All I have to go on in evaluating your
arguments is what you have written down. You may think you have it 'clear in your head',
but you need to lead the reader step by step through your argumentation. It might help to
have a friend read the paper to let you know where the paper lacks clarity.
You're trying to develop reasoned arguments to justify a position. So try this test: cross out
all occurrences of 'I think', 'I personally believe', 'I feel', or 'it's my opinion that'; then you'll
see if you have backed up your opinions with reasons and evidence. The reader is not
interested so much in the fact that your convictions are yours, but rather the clarity and
cogency of the reasons, arguments, and evidence you have in support of your opinions (so
that your opinions are well-founded). The main place that you will need to identify the
arguments as your own is in the last section of the paper, so this is the primary place that you
will need to refer to what you’ve written as your own position. Don't waste time and space
with Vague Generalities (e.g. 'Justice is often cited by moral philosophers as being
important,' 'the question of rights has perennially plagued thinkers,' 'Mill did a really good
job arguing...'). Rather, dig right into the arguments: 'Kant holds that...and argues for it by
claiming that...' 'An objection to the above premise is...' 'I will argue that...' etc. Cross out
anything that might be considered 'FLUFF' in your rough draft. Try to capture the arguments
in your own words. The use of too many quotes is a sign that you have not taken the time to
think through the ideas in your own terms. If you do use the phrasing of other authors, you
must quote and footnote them or it is plagiarism. NOTE: this is not a research paper, your
time will probably be better spent going over the relevant passages in the original texts and
developing the argument rather than exploring the secondary literature. If you do choose to
consult any secondary literature (of any form--including the internet), you must include a
citation to the source in the notes and in a bibliography even if you do not quote the source.
The essay should be typed and double-spaced with 12 pt font, regular margins and no spaces
between paragraphs. Provide parenthetical references to pages where you are closely reading
the primary texts and footnotes or endnote references to any secondary sources used.
This essay should be written in three related parts. It will help to adopt the stance of a
sympathetic interpreter as you reconstruct Mill's and Kant's arguments in the first and second
sections of the paper. The order in which you reconstruct Mill’s and Kant’s arguments is up
to you. You could, for instance, talk about Kant first and Mill second, or vice versa. You
may feel tempted to raise criticisms of their positions as you develop your reconstruction of
the arguments, but do so only when it serves the purpose of aiding in the clarification of the
points. Save your substantive objections and criticisms until the end.
First: In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill presents an argument for the claim that happiness is
one and the only thing good in and of itself. Based on this claim, Mill argues that the
principle of utility is the primary principle of morality. Present the main steps that Mill gives
for claim that happiness is the end of the primary principle of morality. Concentrate on
making clear what the main steps are and how they are connected. If you think there are any
important steps missing or suppressed in Mill's arguments that can be filled in, then do so.
Second: In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that the primary principle
of morality must have the form of a categorical imperative and the end of humanity. As in
the previous section, present the main steps that Kant gives for these two parts of his moral
theory. If you think that there are any important steps missing or suppressed in Kant's
arguments that can be filled in, then do what you can to reconstruct such steps.
Third: It is now time for you to take a position. Having presented the two arguments, locate,
state and clarify one major point of disagreement. Be sure to focus on a disagreement in the
premises leading up to the conclusion. It is clear that Mill and Kant disagree about what the
fundamental principle of morality is, but the point of this paper is to explain how
disagreements about the conclusions can be traced back to disagreements in the premises
used in their arguments. You should be able to locate the specific premise in each of their
arguments where the disagreement occurs. Next, choose one of the two positions (either Mill
or Kant) and take a side in the debate. Try to clarify your thesis. Focusing on the point of
disagreement that you have located, try to develop a defense of the premises used in the
position you have chosen to defend and a criticism of the premises used in the other
argument. Finally, try to continue the discussion between the two philosophers by working
through and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the debate.