p.p1 {margin: 18.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px; font: 12.0px Times; min-height: 14.0px} p

p.p1 {margin: 18.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px; font: 12.0px Times; min-height: 14.0px} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p5 {margin: 18.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p6 {margin: 18.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times; min-height: 14.0px} p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 18.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 12.0px Times} p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p11 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 36.0px; font: 12.0px Times} p.p12 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 55.0px; font: 12.0px Times} li.li2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} li.li4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} ul.ul1 {list-style-type: disc}

Paper Types:

COVER PAGE & BLIND REVIEW

FORMATTING STYLE:

Sources:

RESOURCES:

Example of OPTIONAL Procedure & Outline (for Dualism or/versus Physicalism)

Step 1: Read the relevant lecture slides (activate your memory regarding this stuff)

Step 2: Read the Outline (so you know what to look for in the textbook)

• Introduction [work on this last]
• Background/Context
• Dualism
• Optional: Physicalism
• Optional: Your Assessment
• Conclusion [work on this 2nd to last]

Step 3: Textbook, read “3.1: Overview: The Mind-Body Problem”

As you read: (1) highlight with the outline in mind, and (2) jot notes in the outline (i.e., start filling in the outline; don’t worry about writing style or anything like that yet). You can either (A) while reading: do 1, and then, while re-reading: do 2 (this will take longer, but will help you really master the material), or (B) while reading: do 1 and 2. I’d recommend doing A for 3.1, and if you really get the hang of this, maybe you can do B when doing the other reading. 

Note: 3.1 mentions dualism and physicalism; while it’s nowhere near enough information, it’s a good example of each view’s central claim/thesis.

Step 4: Regarding 3.1, organize what you jotted down in the outline. Look for stuff you need that you missed. Cut out stuff you don’t need.

Step 5: Textbook: Read “3.2: Dualism” and do the same as in Step 3. 

Regarding the separate arguments for Dualism, read all of them, but keep in mind that you may only need one of them (focus on the one you most understand)—you may want to do (1) (from Step 3) for all of the arguments, and then (2) only for argument(s) you choose to include. 

Step 6: Regarding “3.2: Dualism,” same as Step 4.

Step 7: Check how long the paper looks like it will be at this point. 

If you need more content, decide whether you want to either (A) add more arguments for/against dualism, or (B) add physicalism (using “3.3: Physicalism” skipping 234-240 on eliminativism, etc.). While doing A is less reading, the content will start getting harder (e.g., you are now focusing on arguments that weren’t the ones you best understood). Follow the procedures above in Step 3 and Step 4 for A or B. Check how long the paper looks like it will be at this point. If you need more content, do the A or B you didn’t do and/or do more arguments for and against physicalism (following the procedures in Step 3 and Step 4).

Step 8: Consider whether you have anything interesting to say about the views, which view is better (if you did both), and/or ideas about your own view.

Step 9: Write Conclusion

Step 10: Write Introduction

Step 11: Proofread and make revisions

Essay Prompts (from option 2):

Ethics

• Explain the divine command theory. Does divine command theory make philosophical ethics obsolete? Why (not)?
• Explain the Euthyphro Problem.
• Explain the ethical theory of utilitarianism. How did the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill differ? Which do you think is better (defend your answer)?
• How does Alastair Norcross argue for consequentialism in “Comparing Harms: Headaches and Human Lives”? How might someone criticize his argument? Do you agree with that criticism (defend your answer)?
• Explain what a hypothetical imperative is. Explain what a categorical imperative is. Why does Kant think that morality must consist of categorical imperatives?
• What does universalizability mean to Kant? What role does universalizability play in Kant’s ethical theory? Give examples. Do you think universalizability is important (defend your answer)?
• What are the two versions of Kant’s categorical imperative discussed in your text? How does a categorical imperative differ from a hypothetical imperative? Give some examples of how Kant would show that the categorical imperative provides ethical guidance in concrete circumstances.
• What does Kant mean by the “good will”? Why is it so important to his ethical theory? Why does he think that neither consequences nor inclinations should play a role in ethics? Do you agree with Kant (defend your answer)?
• Which of the following two people—Cold Colleen or Heartfelt Heather (see lecture slides)—best illustrates what it means to be a genuinely moral person (defend your answer with reasons)? What does Kant believe? Why?
• What does being an absolutist mean in ethics? Identify ways in which Kant is an absolutist? Do you agree or disagree with absolutism (defend your answer)?
• What criticisms does virtue ethics make of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics? Do you agree with these criticisms (defend your answer)?