AN ETHICAL ISSUE: Snyder’s Excellent Essay and Presentation Assignment
Name: Snyder
Issue: Censorship Philosopher: Nietzsche
The assignment: In about 1000-1200 words, describe a specific philosopher's ethical theory, and agree or
disagree with the position this philosopher might take on a current ethical issue. Then present it.
This assignment is broken down into six distinct parts with different due dates for each. The process work
(A-D) gets you 10% for meeting deadlines even if there are problems, and it can all be done in point form.
A – DECIDE: Choose an issue and clarify your argument for or against it. Then choose a philosopher.
B – READ & APPLY: Read the selection THAT I GIVE YOU, determine the moral theory with quotations as
proof (source), and then apply the theory to your issue. The issue is to be used as an example – a way of
illustrating the theory. The primary focus throughout should be on the theory.
C – THINK: Consider whether or not this theory is a good theory. Does it make sense to follow it? Create a
solid argument for or against this theory (or a bit of both). Continue to use your issue as an example.
D – OUTLINE & DRAFT: Use the outline to create a well-crafted essay.
E – EDIT: Use comments from the rough draft to guide your editing process. Polish the essay and submit.
F – TEACH: Be prepared to teach the class about this ethical theory and apply it to any issue suggested.
For Parts A, B, C, and D (process work) type on this page in point-form, and we’ll e-mail it back and forth.
It’s useful because we won’t be limited to writing really tiny notes in margins – we have limitless space.
HINT: For each part, save your work as Yourname Ethics A, then B, etc., and save all versions to the end.
For Part E, e-mail your essay without the process work. Make sure it’s flawless before you submit it!
For Part F, make a poster and a short explanation, and be on your toes to discuss and debate the issues!
PART A: DECIDE – Due:
1. Choose an ethical issue to study. Add it to the blank at the top of this page. It should be something
“meaty” that is fun to debate. Don’t choose an issue with an obvious leaning unless you decide to take the
minority position (e.g. murder is acceptable behaviour). Good, meaty issues include abortion, capital
punishment, euthanasia, land claims, environment concerns, industrialization, prostitution, drug
legalization, medical intervention, overseas adoption, same-sex marriage, animal experiments, etc.
PLEASE NOTE: Don’t choose an issue that “fits” the philosopher, and don’t try to find what the philosopher
thought about this specific issue. That defeats the requirement to apply the theory to the issue!
2. Brainstorm your thoughts on this issue. Think of every possible (reasonable) point. Make your argument
as solid as possible by considering all possible opposition as well, then refuting the opposition.
My side of the argument: AGAINST CENSORSHIP
- the person in control of censoring has too much power; we’re only okay with censorship until they start
censoring something we like
- stopping the words won’t stop the actions
- words don’t make people evil; they were evil already
– evil acts are the responsibility of the person, not the media they watched
- children are their parents’ responsibility, not the state’s – parents can individually monitor what kids
watch instead of the government censoring anything potentially offensive to anyone
The opposition: FOR CENSORSHIP
- it stops ideas that are harmful from being circulated freely
- it prevents children from seeing harmful things
Refuting the opposition (argue against the opposing points in order to make your argument air-tight):
BUT…
– what harms someone can be because it triggers something that needs to be examined more closely –
therefore, it can actually be useful for people to see things that make them uncomfortable
- children are being too sheltered from reality
3. Choose a philosopher to study from the list discussed in class. Add it to the blank at the top of the page,
and get the readings from me. Choices: Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Freud, Rand, Hume, Nietzsche, or Thoreau
PART B: READ & APPLY – Due:
1. Read your philosopher’s essay slowly and carefully. Philosophy is different than other writings; it can’t
be successfully skimmed for information. At the end of each sentence or so, stop to think about what’s
being said. Sometimes you’ll have to stop and think after a few words! Have a dictionary handy too.
2. As you read, in point-form below, list main ideas (briefly), quotations, and sources (page number in
brackets after each quotation – or name and page number if you’re using more than one reading), and an
explanation in your own words. Also track any thoughts you have about each point – i.e. whether you
agree or disagree and why. Aim for 3-5 points. Some people prefer to make a chart, which is fine too. Do
whatever works best for you!
HINT: Much of the reading will be supports for why this is the right way to determine morality. Focus on the
conclusion of the reading: HOW does this philosopher think we should determine the morality of an issue?
Main Idea #1: - evil is internally derived
Quotation (Source):
- “All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward” (OGM 84).
- “Somebody remarked: ‘I can tell by my own reaction to it that this book is harmful.’ But let him only
wait and perhaps one day he will admit to himself that this same book has done him a great service by
bringing out the hidden sickness of the heart and making it visible” (Gane 40).
Explanation:
- we are all a mix of good and bad inside us; evilness doesn’t come from the outside, so we need an
outlet for the evil in our hearts
Application:
- We create art and music in order to have an outlet for the nasty stuff in our subconscious – it’s
necessary to be free to say evil things in creative media; something bothering us is because it’s
connected to an evilness within us, not because it’s telling us to be evil.
Thoughts:
- yup
Main Idea #2: - provoking society is necessary to get them to think about things
Quotation (Source):
- “Music…forces us to gaze into the horror of individual existence, yet without being turned to stone by
the vision” (Gane 17)
- “…writing is useless that does not contain a stimulus to activity” (Gane 10)
Explanation:
- we should provoke others by showing them their evilness
Application
- Tori Amos – changed people after singing about sexual assault
- evil comes out when we refuse to look at it – once examined, it loses power
Thoughts:
Main Idea #3: - evil is subjective; it’s whatever we say is evil, and it shifts over time (and place to place)
Quotation (Source):
- “That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to
be good” (Gane 107).
- “There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena” (BGE 275).
Explanation:
- evil changes based on cultural definitions – call fewer things evil, and less evilness will exist
Application:
- Some old pieces of art are considered evil, and now they don’t bother us; some people find evil in
benign things
– helter skelter – manson
- 70s show – “dumbass” is okay
Thoughts:
Main Idea #4: - we have free will to act correctly for ourselves; if we don’t act rightly, it’s our fault
Quotation (Source):
- Theory of eternal recurrence – act rightly by acting only if we’d wish to act that way every day forever.
KEY BIT OF THEORY (paraphrased – too long to quote) (TSZ 106-9)
Explanation:
- determine moral by what we’d love to do daily
Application:
- creating harms no-one directly; their own actions harm people, but not due to that creation; creating
can be done daily to give pleasure
Thoughts:
- eternal recurrence – if I have to live one day over and over, then I might just want to party all day
- without a lot of thought people will just choose a hedonistic lifestyle.
- Living this type of morality requires thoughtfulness and intelligence (and can’t be a psychopath)
- most people are neither thoughtful nor intelligent
3. Apply this ethical theory to your issue: Based on the philosopher’s theory, consider what you can
reasonably deduce they would think about your issue. For example, Nietzsche said little about censorship,
but his point of view on the issue can be deduced from his other theories.
Add the word ‘Application:’ under each Explanation section above and explain the philosopher’s moral
stance on your issue based on each section of this moral theory.
PART C: THINK – Due:
1. Think critically about what makes this a good or bad ethical theory. Start with any thoughts you jotted
down during your reading in Part B. You can read criticisms of the theory on-line to get ideas as well. If
you use any, source them. If this theory were perfect, we’d all be using it. What’s wrong with it? You need
at least one criticism, but the rest of your argument may be in agreement with the theory. Make sure to
support your ideas, and consider all possible opposition to your ideas and refute them. Include examples if
useful. Make an air-tight case that answers the question: Is this a good way to determine morality?
Sample thinking with supports, opposition, and refutation of opposition:
It’s a good theory because…
- it creates equality (main point #1)
- not ethical to let some people in society be harmed or neglected
- causes us pain to see others suffer
- gets all people involved in society which increases number of ideas and innovations
- BUT (opposition) doesn’t let the rich get just rewards of their efforts
- BUT (refutation) rich benefit from all of society having basic needs met – can be
safer from theft
It’s a good ethical theory to use because….
- evil really is in us – it’s an accurate assessment of people
- the intellectually weak might be influenced by a movie, but that just brought out what was in
them to begin with
- nobody hasn’t, at some point, enjoyed harming another – having power over another
- have to look at this in order to truly know ourselves and be able to stop evil first hand
- so, it’s good to provoke society – shake them up
It doesn’t really work as an ethical theory because…
- eternal recurrence – if I have to live one day over and over, then I might just want to party all day
- without a lot of thought people will just choose a hedonistic lifestyle.
- BUT people would realize that after a while, partying gets old – to enjoy a day that lasts forever,
we would avoid punishment, yet still be vital and do something we’re proud of
- Living this type of morality requires thoughtfulness and intelligence (and can’t be a psychopath)
- most people are neither thoughtful nor intelligent
- BUT can’t destroy a moral process because people can’t use it. Can still be used by the intelligent
few.
2. Think critically about how the theory is applied to your issue. Go back to Part A and think about HOW
you decided your position on the issue? Which system works better, and why?? What’s the best way to
support your position on this issue?
- What do we do with psychopaths?
– lock up the psychopaths who enjoy harming, not the music.
- What do we do with children? How much should they be allowed to see?
- children can be extraordinarily cruel (evil within them already)
- some children can see another’s perspective, and can be taught to understand that it’s normal to
want to be cruel, but becoming civilized is all about controlling outbursts and not blindly
copying every stupid thing you see
- teaching kids that everyone’s evil and trying hard to not do evil things can actually help kids not
feel so much shame and guilt for their natural temperament. We protect kids too much.
PART D – OUTLINE & DRAFT – Due:
1. Copy and paste the specific ideas from Part B at the * in the Writing Outline below (at THREE or more
BODY PARAGRAPHS) in the correct areas (Idea, Quotation, Explanation, and Application). This is a good
time to consider paragraph order. They can go in a chronological order if that’s necessary to the theory, or
they can start with the strongest points first.
2. Write a thesis statement that introduces the main ideas and answers the question, ‘How does this
philosopher determine moral action?’.
3. Copy and past the specific ideas from Part C at the ** in the Writing Outline below in the correct areas.
This might take more work to structure your opinions into 3-5 different significant points. Order them from
strongest point to weakest point.
4. Write a thesis statement that introduces your points and answers the question, ‘Is this a good way to do
morality?’.
5. Write a good hook that will make a reader curious about your paper. Write a transitional paragraph
that shifts the reader from one section to another (basically the conclusion of the first section, and
introduction to the second section, ending with the thesis statement). And write a conclusion.
6. Copy and paste the WRITING OUTLINE just below itself under ROUGH DRAFT. Delete my instructions
and the skeleton outline points from the rough draft. Then change the point-form format to beautifully
worded paragraphs. (Leave the Outline as is so I can refer to it if there’s a confusing bit in the Rough Draft.)
7. For each body paragraph, make sure you’ve introduced the topic, explained everything, and concluded
the idea. If you go in-depth, and a paragraph runs longer than 7-8 sentences, then break it into a couple
shorter paragraphs.
8. Check spelling, grammar, and word choice. (Don’t use the same words or phrases over and over). Make
sure you have sourced each quotation and fact with proper MLA in-text citations. Include the heading for
your List of Works Consulted (center it) with proper MLA formatting of each citation.
9. In the first half of your rough draft, check to make sure someone who knows nothing about philosophy
can understand the theory and actually learn from your paper.
10. In the second half of your rough draft, the reader should get to know you as a person. Make sure your
thoughts on the theory AND on the issue are clear and well supported.
WRITING OUTLINE (point form)
INTRO PARAGRAPH:
Hook:
Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, Eminem, Led Zeppelin, Elvis Presley: these and many other musical groups
have been part of an ongoing controversy regarding censorship.
Thesis: (Write this sentence after you fill in your points below. Use the three (or so) main points of the theory
as a guide. Answer this question: How does this philosopher determine moral action?)
The issue of censorship can be explored using the ethical theories of Friedrich Nietzsche which indicate
that evil starts within each of us, changes as cultures define it, must be provoked in order to dissipate,
and can be contained through thoughtful contemplation on the notion of eternal recurrence.
* THREE or more BODY PARAGRAPHS - APPLYING THE THEORY TO AN ISSUE (Cut and paste information from
PART B here, but don't include your thoughts – they come later.) Each main idea should refer to a specific
idea from the philosopher’s theory.
Main Idea #1: - evil is internally derived
Quotation (Source):
- “All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward” (OGM 84).
- “Somebody remarked: ‘I can tell by my own reaction to it that this book is harmful.’ But let him only
wait and perhaps one day he will admit to himself that this same book has done him a great service by
bringing out the hidden sickness of the heart and making it visible” (G&C 40).
Explanation:
- we are all a mix of good and bad inside us; evilness doesn’t come from the outside, so we need an
outlet for the evil in our hearts
Application:
- We create art and music in order to have an outlet for the nasty stuff in our subconscious – it’s
necessary to be free to say evil things in creative media; something bothering us is because it’s
connected to an evilness within us, not because it’s telling us to be evil.
Main Idea #3: - evil is subjective; it’s whatever we say is evil, and it shifts over time (and place to place)
Quotation (Source):
- “That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to
be good” (Gane 107).
- “There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena” (BGE 275).
Explanation:
- evil changes based on cultural definitions – call fewer things evil, and less evilness will exist
Application:
- Some old pieces of art are considered evil, and now they don’t bother us; some people find evil in
benign things
– helter skelter – manson
- 70s show – “dumbass” is okay
Main Idea #2: - provoking society is necessary to get them to think about things
Quotation (Source):
- “Music…forces us to gaze into the horror of individual existence, yet without being turned to stone by
the vision” (G 17)
- “…writing is useless that does not contain a stimulus to activity” (G 10)
Explanation:
- we should provoke others by showing them their evilness
Application
- Tori Amos – changed people after singing about sexual assault
- evil comes out when we refuse to look at it – once examined, it loses power
Main Idea #3: - evil is subjective; it’s whatever we say is evil, and it shifts over time (and place to place)
Quotation (Source):
- “That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to
be good” (G 107).
- “There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena” (BGE 275).
Explanation:
- evil changes based on cultural definitions – call fewer things evil, and less evilness will exist
Application:
- Some old pieces of art are considered evil, and now they don’t bother us; some people find evil in
benign things
– helter skelter – manson
- 70s show – “dumbass” is okay
Main Idea #4: - we have free will to act correctly for ourselves; if we don’t act rightly, it’s our fault
Quotation (Source):
- Theory of eternal recurrence – act rightly by acting only if we’d wish to act that way every day forever.
KEY BIT OF THEORY (paraphrased – too long to quote) (TSZ 106-9)
Explanation:
- determine moral by what we’d love to do daily
Application:
- creating harms no-one directly; their own actions harm people, but not due to that creation; creating
can be done daily to give pleasure
TRANSITIONAL PARAGRAPH:
Thesis: (Write this sentence after you fill in the points below. Use the three (or so) main arguments you have
to support or criticize the theory. Answer this question: Is this a good way to determine morality? Why?)
Applied to the real world his theory is accurate and useful, but, unfortunately, most people won’t be
able to adhere to it.
** THREE or more BODY PARAGRAPHS - CRITIQUING THE THEORY (Cut and paste information from PART C
here.) Each point should refer to one of your own ideas.
1st point (criticism or support for the theory)
- evil really is in us – it’s an accurate assessment of people
explanation and agree or disagree (and refute)
- everyone is cruel – even children
- we don’t learn to be cruel by watching shows – can watch and not harm, or can not watch and harm
application to the issue
- should be allowed to create without self-censoring – to bring out our darkest ideas
2nd point (criticism or support for the theory)
It’s useful to be made aware of internal evilness of all
explanation and agree or disagree (and refute)
- reduce our own shame and guilt
- help us sympathize with others coping with feelings of shame
- help us stop blocking evil thoughts, but admitting them and allowing them to be discussed openly
application to the issue
- should be allowed to look at others’ creations – to be provoked to consider our triggers – what makes
us react
3rd point (criticism or support for the theory)
BUT – not everyone can manage an individual ethical system based on nothing more than considering
what we’d like to do repeatedly
explanation and agree or disagree (and refute)
- some will just blindly follow an example
- people can’t think up what’s right or, if they know right, will choose wrong; BUT we can’t censor
everything for the benefit of the people who can’t think for themselves – need punishment to control the
ignorant masses to leave those who can figure out morality to a deeper quest into their own self aided by
provocative lyrics.
application to the issue
- lock up or treat people who can’t control their actions or enjoy evil acts
- people must take responsibility for their actions and not blame artists
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH
Don’t restate the theses using the same words. Mix it up a little! Sum up the theory, the issue, and your
opinions about it all.
- if you do it right, it leads to the best choices
- have to stop people from harming, not stop them from creating
- better to allow some people the ability to have an authentic existence, than have everyone safe from a
few people who might find inspiration in innocuous lyrics that provokes them to act unkindly
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED
Include full MLA citations of each reading you USED in the essay. The first word of the citation should match
the first word in the in-text citation (unless there’s only one reading, in which case you just need a page
number in the in-text citation).
Gane, Laurence, and Kitty Chan. Introducing Nietzsche. New York: Totem Books. 1998. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. OGM. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York:
Vintage Books. 1989. Print.
---. BGE. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: The
Modern Library. 1992. Print.
---. TSZ. Thus Spake Zarathustra. Trans. Thomas Common. New York: Dover Publications Inc. 1999.
Print.
ROUGH DRAFT (in paragraphs)
I haven’t prettied this up yet – but this is what it looks like just after the outline instructions are removed.
It’s so close! Make sure to write complete and well-structured paragraphs before submitting Part D.
Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, Eminem, Led Zeppelin, Elvis Presley: these and many other musical groups
have been part of an ongoing controversy regarding censorship.
The issue of censorship can be explored using the ethical theories of Friedrich Nietzsche which indicate
that evil starts within each of us, changes as cultures define it, must be provoked in order to dissipate,
and can be contained through thoughtful contemplation on the notion of eternal recurrence.
Evil is internally derived.
“All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward” (OGM 84).
“Somebody remarked: ‘I can tell by my own reaction to it that this book is harmful.’ But let him only
wait and perhaps one day he will admit to himself that this same book has done him a great service by
bringing out the hidden sickness of the heart and making it visible” (G&C 40).
We are all a mix of good and bad inside us; evilness doesn’t come from the outside, so we need an
outlet for the evil in our hearts
We create art and music in order to have an outlet for the nasty stuff in our subconscious – it’s
necessary to be free to say evil things in creative media; something bothering us is because it’s
connected to an evilness within us, not because it’s telling us to be evil.
Evil is subjective; it’s whatever we say is evil, and it shifts over time (and place to place)
- “That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to
be good” (G 107).
- “There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena” (BGE 275).
- evil changes based on cultural definitions – call fewer things evil, and less evilness will exist
- Some old pieces of art are considered evil, and now they don’t bother us; some people find evil in
benign things
– helter skelter – manson
- 70s show – “dumbass” is okay
Provoking society is necessary to get them to think about things
- “Music…forces us to gaze into the horror of individual existence, yet without being turned to stone by
the vision” (G 17)
- “…writing is useless that does not contain a stimulus to activity” (G 10)
- we should provoke others by showing them their evilness
- Tori Amos – changed people after singing about sexual assault
- evil comes out when we refuse to look at it – once examined, it loses power
Evil is subjective; it’s whatever we say is evil, and it shifts over time (and place to place)
- “That which an age feels to be evil is usually an untimely after-echo of that which was formerly felt to
be good” (G 107).
- “There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena” (BGE 275).
- evil changes based on cultural definitions – call fewer things evil, and less evilness will exist
- Some old pieces of art are considered evil, and now they don’t bother us; some people find evil in
benign things
– helter skelter – manson
- 70s show – “dumbass” is okay
We have free will to act correctly for ourselves; if we don’t act rightly, it’s our fault
- Theory of eternal recurrence – act rightly by acting only if we’d wish to act that way every day forever.
KEY BIT OF THEORY (paraphrased – too long to quote) (TSZ 106-9)
- determine moral by what we’d love to do daily
- creating harms no-one directly; their own actions harm people, but not due to that creation; creating
can be done daily to give pleasure
Nietzsche would say……Applied to the real world his theory is accurate and useful, but, unfortunately,
most people won’t be able to adhere to it.
Evil really is in us – it’s an accurate assessment of people
- everyone is cruel – even children
- we don’t learn to be cruel by watching shows – can watch and not harm, or can not watch and harm
- should be allowed to create without self-censoring – to bring out our darkest ideas
It’s useful to be made aware of internal evilness of all
- reduce our own shame and guilt
- help us sympathize with others coping with feelings of shame
- help us stop blocking evil thoughts, but admitting them and allowing them to be discussed openly
- should be allowed to look at others’ creations – to be provoked to consider our triggers – what makes
us react
BUT – not everyone can manage an individual ethical system based on nothing more than considering
what we’d like to do repeatedly
- some will just blindly follow an example
- people can’t think up what’s right or, if they know right, will choose wrong; BUT we can’t censor
everything for the benefit of the people who can’t think for themselves – need punishment to control the
ignorant masses to leave those who can figure out morality to a deeper quest into their own self aided by
provocative lyrics.
- lock up or treat people who can’t control their actions or enjoy evil acts
- people must take responsibility for their actions and not blame artists
If you do eternal recurrence right, it leads to the best choices
- have to stop people from harming, not stop them from creating
- better to allow some people the ability to have an authentic existence, than have everyone safe from a
few people who might find inspiration in innocuous lyrics that provokes them to act unkindly
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED
Gane, Laurence, and Kitty Chan. Introducing Nietzsche. New York: Totem Books. 1998. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. OGM. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York:
Vintage Books. 1989. Print.
---. BGE. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: The
Modern Library. 1992. Print.
---. TSZ. Thus Spake Zarathustra. Trans. Thomas Common. New York: Dover Publications Inc. 1999.
Print.