Description
Part A
In 2-3 page paper analyzing the moral argumentation of a contemporary opinion/editorial article, political speech. Analysis should be completely based on the Logical Reasoning Handout in the Course Content Tab or the Giving Reasons book.
Directions for Moral Argument Analysis Paper
This is a 2-3 page, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font paper assignment. Several articles have been posted into the Moral Argument Analysis Paper tab on the Blackboard site. Using the tools given in the “Logical Reasoning Handout” found in the Course Content tab of the Canvas site, please write a paper analyzing the argument of one of these articles using the questions below. After you have completed the assignment, please submit it in the place marked in the Sylalbus & Schedule tab.
In your paper, please make sure to answer the following questions:
What is the main normative conclusion the article is arguing for?
What are the premises or arguments the article uses to support the main normative conclusion?
Are any of the premises normative? If so, which ones?
If none of the premises are normative, what would be a normative premise that would support the normative conclusion?
Are the premises strong enough to support the conclusion?
If you judged that the premises are not strong enough to support the conclusion, what are the weaknesses with either the premises or the argument that led you to think this?
What piece of evidence, if true, would make you change your mind about your judgment?
It is important to keep this paper within the page range, so each of these questions will probably receive at least a few sentences and perhaps even a paragraph in the answer. Please do not fall short of two full pages and please do not exceed three full pages.
Part B
4-6 page analysis of a contemporarymoral issue from virtue-, duty-, and utility-based perspectives, culminating in a critical argument in favor of one of the analyses.
You may choose any moral problem raised in this course or choose your own, but please contact me before choosing your own.
First, state the moral problem. It should be a matter of action, wherein one can characterize the choice as right or wrong. (1/2-1page)
Next, analyze the moral problem using the tools of virtue ethics studied in the course. What would Aristotle say about the problem? What are the habits and virtues involved in the decisions? How do the decisions contribute to the flourishing of human nature or not? (1-2 pages)
Next, analyze the moral problem using the tools of duty ethics studied in the course. What would Kant say about the problem? What can one do with a good will in these decisions? What are the duties required of people in this position? What would happen if the decisions made were universalized so that everyone had to make the same decision? (1-2 pages)
Next, analyze the moral problem using the tools of consequentialist ethics studied in the course. What would Mill say about the problem? What are the pleasures and pains caused by these decisions or failure to act in these decisions? How can you balance the pleasures against the pains in these decisions? What course of action would result in the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain? (1-2 pages)
Finally, choose which moral approach you think to be strongest and give reasons why you think so. (1/2-2 pages)
