辅导 Paper Prompt #2讲解 Python语言

Paper Prompt #2 (Due November 24 at 11:59pm on Quercus)

In “It's Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” Walter Sinnott-Armstrong investigates the question of whether it would be wrong for him to take a drive in a gas-guzzling SUV for fun on a Sunday afternoon. It seems to him that it is, but he tries and fails to come up with a way to account for its wrongness. That is, he considers a number of candidate moral principles whose truth might account for the wrongness, but finds that each of them is either false or does not imply that taking the drive would be wrong.

In a paper of 3-4 pages (double-spaced), critically examine the central question of Sinnott- Armstrong’s paper. That is, do one of the following things:

1) Construct and defend an argument of your own for the claim that it would (or would not) be wrong to take a drive in a gas-guzzling SUV on a Sunday afternoon just for fun.

2) Critically evaluate one (or more) of Sinnott-Armstrong’s own arguments. (For example, you might argue that one of the principles he dismisses as false is actually true and that its truth implies that it would be wrong to drive a gas-guzzling SUV on a Sunday afternoon just for fun).

Some notes:

• Remember, what’s at issue is whether there are considerations having to do with climate change that make driving the SUV for fun wrong, not considerations of other types (e.g., that driving for fun puts cyclists at risk).

• If you’re arguing against Sinnott-Armstrong, avoid doing so merely by appealing to scientific

or empirical claims. For example, if all you did in your paper was provide some scientific or empirical reason(s) to believe that taking the drive would cause some harms related to climate change, you would not be doing philosophy. Of course, much of Sinnott-Armstrong’s overall argument relies on his being correct in claiming that the drive would not cause this harm, and so you would be refuting him if you could demonstrate that it does cause harm. My point is just that demonstrating a philosopher is wrong by pointing to the fact that his argument relies on an empirical falsehood is not doing philosophy. So what should you do if you think the answer to the question of whether it’s wrong to go for the Sunday drive depends on whether the drive will or might cause harm? Well, you could just assume for the sake of the paper that the drive will or might cause some minimal amount of harm and write a paper in which you take a stand on what type of reasons would justify taking the drive given that it will or might cause some harm. Does the fact that even short drives might cause some climate-related harm imply that we should never (or hardly ever) drive our cars? If not, how do we draw the relevant lines? (e.g., What if Sinnott-Armstrong lives where there is no public transit and wanted some ice cream, but the store was too far to walk? Would it be permissible to drive then? What if he was going to visit a friend? Etc.)

• I am not asking you to go out and read what others have to say about the topic. In fact, I

discourage you from doing so. Not only would this take valuable time, but you would run the risk of writing a report on what others have to say rather than a philosophical paper. You should be aiming for originality, not writing a summary of what some other people think.

• I am not asking you to appeal to any other readings on our syllabus.

• Write as though your reader has no familiarity with the subject matter (e.g., Don’t assume that your reader has read Sinnott-Armstrong). Your paper should be accessible to any reasonably intelligent adult.

• If you need an extension, contact me (not your TA).

Assignment Breakdown

A complete essay will contain all of the following:

• A short introduction. This is your opportunity to introduce your reader to the topic and your thesis. Briefly explain the topic you will engage and give your reader a sense of how your paper is structured. What can he or she expect to encounter in what follows?