Read the DIRECTIONS Carefully!!

Paper must FLOW when making arguments and writing the paper. Meaning no confusing paragraphs or sentences!!

I will provide you a sample essay, and you CANNOT repeat ANYTHING from THE SAMPLE ESSAY. It’s called ” new phil thesis paper 1″.

Article you MUST READ: BRAND-BALLARD, TALBOT KAGAN, HAMPTON, DELMAS, ISSACS, CRISTIANO

READ ALL OF THE ARTICLES i’VE GIVEN YOU TO READ AND YOU MUST INCLUDE OTHER AUTHORS IN THE ESSAY. YOU MUST COMPARE AND CONTRAST YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THEIR ARGUMENTS. WHAT YOU AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH THE AUTHORS ARGUMENTS!!!!!!! YOU CAN’T MAKE THE EXACT SAME POINTS AS THE AUTHORS. THINK ABOUT HOW THE AUTHORS AND AUDIENCE WOULD RESPOND TO YOUR ARGUMENTS , ESPECIALLY FOR COUNTEREXAMPLES

MAKE STRAIGHT FORWARD ARGUMENTS!!

You might want to do a little bit of research paper writing the thesis proposal.

There must be NO plagiarism or grammatical errors of any kind!! PLEASE PROOFREAD THREE TIMES BEFORE SUBMITTING IT TO ME

I want someone who is an EXPERT in philosophy and philosophical questions !! THIS IS NOT AN EASY WRITING ASSIGNMENT . IT WILL REQUIRES A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING

*****MY TOPIC FOR PAPER : Do judges have moral reasons to adhere in sub-optimal result cases? If yes, what is the source of the reasons and how strong are they? If no, why not?

thesis: Judges do not have moral reasons to adhere to sub-optimal result cases

******THESIS MUST BE TRUE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!! THESIS MUST BE AN ARGUMENT!!

(feedback)The thesis needs to address two things more explicitly. Are there reasons to adhere in EVERY suboptimal result case, or just in some of them? How strong are these reasons (that is, what other obligations can they override, and what obligations would they be overridden by)? The objection you are discussing is the one Brand-Ballard brings up (and is what we are focusing on in class). It’s something you should definitely address in the paper, but the non-obvious objection needs to be something new, that we didn’t cover IN THE Brand- Ballard article.YOURSELF WHAT IS NOT BEING ANSWERED HERE. Come up with your own thoughts on the questions and what is the question leaving out,

Paper overview

Audience( KEEP THAT IN MIND WHILE PREPARING THIS PAPER)

The audience for the paper is a reasonable person who has taken this class, understood everything we have covered, and starts off disagreeing with your thesis. Keep this audience in mind as you write your paper.

Part 1
Part 1 will be read and graded independently from part 2 and 3. Ideas and arguments in part 2 or 3 will not contribute to your grade for part 1.

Part 1 gets an A if it could convince the audience that your thesis is true. This means that Part 1 must do all of the following:

Part 1 must explain what your thesis means. Any unclear or ambiguous terms should be explained. Given this explanation, a person should be able to think of example situations and determine what your thesis would say about them. If they cannot, then no one can tell whether or not Part 1 could convince your audience, since we don’t know what it is trying to convince the audience.

Part 1 must contain an argument for your thesis. The argument must give evidence that your thesis is true, evidence which could convince the audience. Remember, your audience starts off disagreeing with you; don’t give arguments that would only convince someone who already shares your view. The argument should address every aspect of your thesis: if your thesis has multiple conditions, or answers multiple questions, you must argue for all of these.

Part 1 must address all obvious objections. Your thesis, and/or your arguments, will seemingly disagree with arguments we covered in class, or ideas in the readings. Or, there may be problems with your arguments, or counterexamples to your thesis, that your audience would very easily think of. These are “obvious” objections – objections that your audience will know of, which must be addressed in order to convince your audience.

So, your paper must state all the obvious objections. For each, it must explain why this objection would seem relevant to your thesis or arguments.

Your paper must respond to each objection (showing that your thesis is still true) in a way that could satisfy your audience. This will require giving evidence that your audience would find compelling.

Part 2
In Part 2, you must give a reasonable counterexample to your thesis.

This must be a specific example, which is significantly different from any we have covered in class, or anything that was in the reading. You must clearly explain the specific situation that is your counterexample. And you must clearly explain why someone would think that this is a strong counterexample to your thesis.

To get an A, you must both give a counterexample to your thesis that could convince a reasonable person that your thesis is false, and also clearly explain why a reasonable person could be convinced by it, in a way that shows that you understand (some of) those who disagree with you.

Part 3
In Part 3, you must respond to the counterexample given in Part 2. You may not change your thesis, nor change any part of the objection from Part 2.

Your response should be able to convince a person who was originally compelled by the example in Part 2.

If your response shows that there is a better counterexample to your thesis than the one in Part 2 (e.g. it focuses on a detail of Part 2 that could easily be changed to make Part 2 a better counterexample), that is bad for your grade.

If Part 2 is a weak or bad counterexample to your thesis, then you cannot get a good grade for Part 3; this is because Part 3 does not demonstrate your ability to really engage with people who disagree with you.

Paper grading rubric

60% of your grade.

Part 1

Thesis: THE MUST IMPORTANT PART OF THE ESSAY
These criteria on the thesis are a minimum bar for a passing paper. If you far exceed them, it’s not going to push your grade up. But if you fail to meet them, it will be very hard to get even a decent grade. This is because your thesis is what makes sense of everything else you say in the paper.

1. Your topic and questions are either pre-approved or Brian has approved it in writing. Topics/questions that are different in any meaningful way from what has been approved can potentially result in an F.
1a. Your thesis is your answer to all the questions posed for your topic.
* Your thesis must be the first thing you say in the paper, and explained immediately after.
2. Your thesis is not trivial or partly trivial. Trivial theses can potentially result in an F. A thesis can be graded down for being somewhat trivial.
3. Any terms that are vague, ambiguous, or unclear are defined or explained early in your paper. A reader should be able to think of example situations and determine exactly what your thesis says about them.

Argument for your thesis:
4. The argument gives evidence which could be compelling to a reasonable person who has understood the course material and started out not agreeing with your thesis.
5. The evidence is sufficient to establish that your entire thesis is true – you sufficiently argue for all of the answers to all of the relevant questions.
6. It is clear and well explained how the evidence supports your thesis, and why the evidence is sufficient to establish that your thesis is true.

Response to “obvious” objections.
7. You identify and explain all of the obvious objections to your thesis or to the points you made in making your arguments.
* An obvious objection is anything discussed in class or in the reading that seems to go against your thesis or the points you make in arguing for your thesis. Obvious objections also include any objections that would come to mind to a reasonable and attentive reader who had taken this class, given a modicum of reflection about your claims.
8. For each objection, you correctly characterize what the disagreement is and why it exists.
9. You respond to each obvious objection. This involves either explaining why the apparent disagreement is not a real disagreement, or why the objection is mistaken or irrelevant.
10. The response to the objection must be clear, and must be able to able to convince a reasonable person who had made that objection.
(Note: I will apply 8-10 separately to each obvious objection you discuss. If you leave out an obvious objection, this is like getting an F for that objection)

Grading standards 4, 5, and 9 are the most heavily weighted in determining the grade for part 1.

Part 2. Non-obvious objection
20% of your grade

11. Gives one counterexample your thesis. This must be significantly different from anything discussed in class or in the readings.
12. The counterexample is plausible, relevant to the thesis, and not ruled out by what is said in Part 1. A reasonable person who had read Part 1 and taken this class could think that this counterexample disproves your thesis.
* It must not be the case that small changes to the counterexample would clearly make it a better counterexample.
13. It is explained why the counterexample is relevant to the thesis, why it shows that the thesis is false, and why a reasonable person would believe it is a strong counterexample.

Part 3. Response to the non-obvious objection
20% of your grade

Note: If part 2 is very weak, then part 3 cannot get a high grade. A response to a bad objection does not demonstrate philosophical understanding.
14. Gives an argument that the objection does not show your thesis is false.
* This must not misinterpret the objection.
* This does not change the thesis.
* The response does not rely on details of the counterexample that could easily be changed.
15. The response gives evidence which could be compelling to a reasonable person who was initially convinced by the example from Part 2.
16. The evidence is sufficient to show that the counterexample does not disprove your thesis.
17. It is clear and well explained how the evidence responds to the counterexample.
18. The response does not change or misuse the meanings of any terms discussed in class or in the reading.
19. The response does not rely on any misunderstandings of concepts or arguments from class or the reading.

General standards:
These apply to the entire paper.
20. Any discussion of ideas, terms, or arguments from class or the readings is correct and accurate (This is extremely important; mistakes about class material can bring down your grade significantly).
21. The meaning of every sentence is clear.
22. No significant grammar/spelling/word choice errors.
23. No use of quotations unless absolutely necessary. My general policy is to not read quotes at all. I should be able to understand everything in your paper without them.

---

Formatting
Your grade will be reduced 1/3 of a grade (e.g. from a B+ to B) for each of these rules you break.
* ID page: after the last body page, add a new page with nothing on it but your name; put your name at the bottom of this page. This allows us to grade all papers anonymously.
* Do not put your name, or any other identifying marks, anywhere on the paper except for your ID page.
* Single spaced, 1″ margins, 12 point font (Times New Roman or something very similar. I recommend Garamond).
* No introduction or conclusion. You thesis is the first thing you say.
* Must be in .doc or .docx format.
* The file name must be “[your student id number] [course number] PAPER 1.doc” or “.docx”.
* Please label “Part 1,” “Part 2,” and “Part 3” of your paper (see above for what goes in each part).
* If you are writing on a topic or questions that was not pre-approved, you must have gotten approval by email from Brian. If you did, please put a footnote after your thesis saying “This thesis was approved by Brian on [date].”

Length
* The paper can be as long as you want. However, if it goes over 5 single spaced pages, excluding bibliography and ID page, you will be marked down for any unnecessary material. Material is unnecessary if it is not needed to fulfill the above grading standards. So, going over 5 pages is fine as long as it is done to satisfy the above grading standards.

THE FEEDBACK GOT FROM MY TEACHER.

(feedback)The thesis needs to address two things more explicitly. Are there reasons to adhere in EVERY suboptimal result case, or just in some of them? How strong are these reasons (that is, what other obligations can they override, and what obligations would they be overridden by)? The objection you are discussing is the one Brand-Ballard brings up (and is what we are focusing on in class). It’s something you should definitely address in the paper, but the non-obvious objection needs to be something new, that we didn’t cover IN THE Brand- Ballard article.

Keywords:

Standpoints: Be able to explain what the legal and prudential standpoint are. Be able to give examples that illustrate the difference between the different standpoints of evaluation (legal, prudential, moral) – e.g. give an example of something that is legally wrong but morally permissible, legally wrong but prudentially permissible, morally wrong but legally permissible, morally wrong but prudentially permissible, prudentially wrong but legally or morally permissible. If given claims about what is wrong or permissible, be able to say which standpoint these are most plausible from and why.

Wrongness: Be able to give plausible examples of permissible, wrong, and obligatory actions (from each of three standpoints – moral, legal, prudential). Be able to give examples of acts that are morally wrong but also wrong to prevent, acts that are morally permissible but morally permissible to prevent, and acts that are morally obligatory but morally permissible to prevent. Be able to rewrite sentences using “wrong,” “permissible,” “duty,” or “obligation” into sentences using the other terms, which mean the same things.

Reasons and prima facie duties: Key terms: “reason for,” “reason against,” “prima facie duty,” “overriding,” “conflict.” Be able to explain what each of these mean, and give plausible examples of each. Be able to give examples in which there are moral reasons for doing x and moral reasons against doing x (for the same x, at the same time); be able to explain what is morally wrong or permissible for a person to do in that situation and why. Be able to give examples in which two prima facie moral duties conflict, and one duty overrides the other; be able to explain what is wrong and permissible for the person to do in that situation. If I give you examples of situations, be able to identify the moral reasons for and against the available options.

Free riding / complicity: Key terms: “free ride,” “free riding,” “complicit,” “complicity.” Be able to explain each term in your own words. Be able to give examples of each. If I give you examples of situations, be able to identify if they are examples of free riding or complicity (or neither) and explain why. Be able to give examples where acts seem morally wrong because they are free riding, or morally wrong because they are complicity, and examples where free riding seems morally permissible or complicity seems morally permissible. Note: it is easy to give examples where doing x is wrong and doing x makes a person complicit, but the complicity is not clearly what makes x wrong (the same for free riding). For example, a person who runs someone over with a very polluting car is complicit in climate change. Is this wrong because of the complicity? It’s most clearly wrong because it is a murder, not because of the complicity. When you give examples of acts that are wrong because they free riding/complicity, don’t give examples like that.

Adherence/deviation: Key terms: “adhere,” “deviate.” Be able to explain what each means, and give your own examples of each. If I give you examples of acts, be able to identify if they are acts of adherence or deviation or neither, and to explain why. Be sure that you understand that adhering or deviating involves applying or misapplying legal rules; it’s not the same as what we normally call “breaking the law” (i.e. it is not doing something criminal