[SOLVED] Essay..

FINAL PAPER (due June 30th)
Write a short essay (1000-1500 words) in response to one of the prompts below.
It is up to you how to organize your essays, but be sure to do so in such a way that you address all
parts of the prompts you choose. You may add additional questions to your prompt, as you see fit,
but if you would like to introduce major modifications it is a good idea to consult with me beforehand.
You will be evaluated on the clarity of your prose, how accurately and informatively you reconstruct
positions/arguments of other philosophers, how well organized each essay is, the plausibility of the
views you defend, and the cogency and originality of the arguments you use to support your views.
For a refresher on the norms of good philosophical writing, have a look at Jim Pryor’s How to Write a
Philosophy Paper and at Micah Lewin’s Philosophy Paper Rubric (posted on Blackboard under the
‘Readings’ tab, in the ‘Week 0’ folder).
Please also consult my PowerPoint slides on “Philosophical Writing” (on Blackboard under the
‘Assignments’ tab).
1. Schapiro tells us that children have a “liminal” status vis-à-vis the other members of the moral
community. What, more precisely, does she mean by this? Do you think elderly people with
dementia of the sort discussed in the articles by Dworkin and Jaworska have a “liminal status” in
that same sense? More generally, what important similarities might there be between the ethical
challenges that arise when we are considering how to promote the interests and respect the rights
of children, and when we are considering how to promote the interests and respect the rights of
elderly people with dementia? Are there any important dissimilarities? If so, how should these
affect our treatment of people in either category?
2. If what Sally Haslanger says about the cultural basis of the importance we tend to place upon
knowing our biological relations is more or less correct, parents (whether biological or
adoptive) appear to face a dilemma. On the one hand, if they choose to raise their children to view
these biological relations as relatively unimportant, they will be challenging an unjust dominant
schema and they will thereby be promoting a more just world. But they may also be disadvantaging
their own children relative to others with a more traditional upbringing, particularly when it comes
to navigating the social world as it is right now. On the other hand, if they choose to raise their
children as endorsing the importance of biological relations, they will put them in a stronger social
position in light of the dominant cultural order, but they may also be reinforcing fundamentally
unjust cultural norms. Explain this dilemma, and make clear how it can be regarded as an instance
of a much more general type of ethical dilemma, between choosing to do what would be best for
the particular people for whom one cares a great deal (including oneself), and what would be best
for humanity at large. Does the fact that in this case the choice involves raising a child make the
choice easier? Or more difficult? (If you find it helpful, you may want to consider the question
this way: might Schapiro’s account of the nature and justification of the “paternalistic attitude” help
a parent to resolve this sort of dilemma? If so, how? If not, how can this sort of dilemma be
resolved, if at all?)
3. Why, according to Thomas Nagel, is it correct to regard death as a misfortune? What confusion(s)
might lead someone to endorse the opposite claim, and how can it/they be cleared up? If you
agree with Nagel that death is bad, must you also agree that immortality would be preferable? To
approach this last question, imagine that you were offered a pill that would make you immortal (i.e.
you would live forever at your current age). What does Bernard Williams predict will eventually,
but inevitably, happen to you if you take the pill? Why does Williams think this? Do you agree
with him? Why? Would you take the pill?
4. Scheffler imagines that if he found himself in the “infertility scenario,” he (and many like him)
would feel a deep and pervasive sense of loss. Yet if Benatar is right, we ought to regard the end of
the human race as, on the whole, a very good thing. Does Benatar’s view entail that the attitudes
Scheffler anticipates feeling when confronted with the infertility scenario are mistaken? What do
you think Benatar might say about the sorts of feelings and attitudes that Scheffler predicts? Which
author do you find more congenial to your own way of thinking about such matters, and why?