Deviant Decision Imposes Indiscernible Five Page
Read the DIRECTIONS Carefully!!
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 MUST BE TRUE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!! THESIS MUST BE AN ARGUMENT!!
YOU ARE TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE QUESTION AND ASK YOURSELF WHAT IS NOT BEING ANSWERED HERE. Come up with your own thoughts on the questions and what is the question leaving out = .
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 Part 1:
60% of your grade.
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.
**This what I wrote so far!!! I don’t want you to copy anything I have written. I went you to write a competently better paper**
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.
The judge’s reasons in suboptimal-result cases to adhere to the law prevail over her reasons to hear and decide the case, generating a moral reason to adherence. Based on various perspectives, judges have moral reasons to adhere to sub-optimal result cases.
Certainly, the argument for this thesis can be centered on the fact that there are explicit negative implications of judicial deviation patterns from the law. These are the implications that deviation patterns have on the decisions made by other major legal actors, particularly the decisions made by judges in future cases. It should be noted that deviation in suboptimal-result cases motivates injudicious judges to deviate in other cases, probably misidentifying them as suboptimal-result cases. Even though adherence in sub-optimal results case is suboptimal, it does not discourage the judicious expectations of the loser. And so, in suboptimal-result cases, the systematic reasons lead to adherence rather than a deviation.
Part II: Non-obvious Objection
While systemic implications provide the essential reasons for judges to adhere to the law in suboptimal-result cases, I must oppose some objections to this thesis. The non-obvious objection is based on the fact that deviation cannot typically result in noticeable systemic implications. In fact, the implications can only arise in extraordinary cases where the non-party is unfavorably affected by a deviant decision. The connection between deviation and systemic implications is weak and does not warrant judges to adhere to sub-optimal result cases. It is worth mentioning that when an action does not have noticeable implications, then there is no justifiable reason for or against performing it. This reasoning is especially significant as the instant implications of an adherent decision are characteristically important than the systemic implications of a deviant decision.
Besides, the judge who abide by the law in suboptimal-result cases considerably affect the loser, and repeatedly other recognizable parties in the case. In the same vein, adherence is advantageous to the winning side; however, in suboptimal-result cases, the loser suffers more than how the winner benefits. Nonetheless, there are some suboptimal result cases where the judges are morally allowed to deviate. The reason for deviation could be to avoid repercussions that were only moderately suboptimal. Thus, the objection from the systemic implications has a substantial resolution for any individual who does not support deviation in suboptimal-result cases. This is the same logic to most observers and writers who seem entirely confident that judges act impermissibly if they deviate in suboptimal-result cases.
Part III: Response to the Non-obvious Objection
The response to the above non-obvious objection entails accepting the more impact and actuality of indiscernible effects. It can be said that a deviant decision imposes indiscernible implication on the legal system at large, regardless of its unnoticeable consequences on the concerned parties. Even though the deviant decision could impose a risk of substantial detriment, very few or no deviant decisions that can affect other optimal-result cases. Any particular deviant decision generates a slight risk on the case. Overall, these reasons cannot take precedence in most of the suboptimal-result cases. The judges in such cases have strong moral reasons to observe the law. The negative implications of adherence, on the loser and other parties, are mostly direct and significant, in suboptimal-result cases. As such, the adherence reasons are strong enough to outweigh the judge’s obligation and desire to deviate; hence, they bring about a considerable reason to adhere.