Writers choice of Prompt

Your essay should be around 4-5 pages in length. It should be double-spaced, with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. You do not need to do any research beyond the assigned readings, but you may if you want to. If you do rely on outside sources, you must cite them. Use any citation-style you are comfortable with. For help with citations I recommend consulting the “Purdue Owl”, a free online resource provided by Purdue University.

Prompt Instructions:
Pick one of the prompts below. Ideally the prompt you pick should be for an argument that you disagree with. (I say this because choosing an argument you disagree with, and showing why it is wrong, will make for a stronger paper.) There are two ways in which you might disagree with an argument:
You might disagree with the conclusion of the argument.
You might agree with the conclusion of the argument but think that the argument itself is weak (i.e., that the conclusion is not properly supported by the argument the author gives).

Your task for this assignment is to first faithfully and charitably recreate the argument that you pick. You should explain the argument in such a way that someone who was confused by the original author’s presentation could pick up your paper and come to better understand the argument.

Second, you should explain why the argument does not succeed. Did they make a mistake in reasoning at some point? Does their argument rely on a false analogy? Does the argument make a false assumption? Does their argument lead to absurd implications? Can you propose a solution to the argument to save the author’s conclusion? (You need not answer all of these questions in your paper. They are meant as suggestions to help you think through the assignment)

There are several different prompts because I want you to write about something that interests you. Hopefully, one of the prompts does. If there is something you want to write about that is not covered in one of the prompts, please reach out to me and let me know what your idea is. If it is manageable, I’m more than happy to let you explore your interests.

On page 317 of “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson presents the “people-seed” case, which is supposed to show that a fetus does not necessarily have a right to be carried to term even if its existence is the result of a voluntary action. What is the “people-seed” case and how does it support this conclusion? (In other words, how does the analogy work?) Does the argument succeed? Why/why not?

In “Why Abortion is Immoral” Don Marquis argues that in most cases abortion is seriously morally wrong because fetuses have a future like ours. What does it mean to say that fetuses have a future like ours and why, according to Marquis, does this make it seriously morally wrong to abort them? Does this argument succeed? Why/why not?

On page 364 of “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” James Rachels presents a pair of cases that is supposed to show that there is no significant moral difference between killing and letting die. What is this pair of cases? Does it support the conclusion that Rachels thinks it does? (Here it might be helpful to look at what Bonnie Steinbeck has to say about the cases.) Why/Why not?

In the “Intentional Termination of Life,” Bonnie Steinbeck argues that “the right to refuse treatment is not the same as, nor does it entail, a right to voluntary euthanasia” (p. 370). How does she defend this statement? Does her argument succeed? Why/why not?

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that we should give to charities such as Oxfam or the Stop Malaria Foundation until we reach the level of marginal utility. What is the level of marginal utility and why does Singer think that we should give to such charities until we reach this level? Is Singer right that we are obligated to give until we reach this point? Why/why not?