Description
Hello. Write with plain, simple language, there is no need to sound fancy. No need to quote. Don’t raise more objections than you need to. Can use personal pronouns. No general introduction. Explain technical terms. Thank you. The “Radford” attachment is a paper I submitted earlier if you can try your best to imitate it. Also, I wanted to do question 6 but if you want to write about another, be my guest
Final Paper Instructions
Pick one of the following questions and answer in 2000 words. Submit via Blackboard by Midnight, May 23. Make sure to answer every part of the question. You can think of the different parts of the question as corresponding to different parts (i.e. paragraphs) of your paper. Make sure you cite, whenever necessary. I don’t care what citation style you use, so long as it is used correctly and consistently.
Question One: (Reading: Diamond’s “Anything But Argument”)
Cora Diamond rejects Onora O’Neil’s suggestion that if one wants to convince someone to adopt some moral perspective, then one must proceed by offering that person arguments. Explain why Diamond rejects this view and also why, according to Diamond, many philosophers have found O’Neil’s claim attractive. Next, raise one objection to (or worry about) Diamond’s argument. Finally, consider how Diamond might respond to your objection, and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of her argument.
Question Two: (Reading: Gaita’s “Stories, Philosophy, Science”)
Rai Gaita argues that stories can teach us about the scope and nature of moral concepts. Explain what Gaita means by this, and how this function of stories is very different from the function of “anecdotes” which Gaita sees as providing mere empirical evidence. Next, raise one objection to (or worry about) Gaita’s argument. Finally, consider how Gaita might respond to your objection, and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of his claim.
Question Three: (Reading: Eaton’s “Robust Immoralism”)
Anne Eaton argues for Immoralism. Explain how Eaton thinks that artworks which feature Rough Heroes provide evidence of Immoralism. Make sure you define Immoralism and Rough Heroes. Next, raise one objection to Eaton’s argument. Finally, consider how Eaton might respond to your objection, and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of her claim.
Question Four (Reading: Gendler’s “The Problem of Imaginative Resistance”)
In her article, Tamar Gendler lists some of the explanations that philosophers have given of the causes of imaginative resistance (i.e. the varieties of Wontianism, Cantianism etc.). Pick the explanation you think is the most plausible and sketch how it explains the causes and nature of imaginative resistance. Next, raise one objection to (or worry about) this explanation. Finally, consider how a defender of that explanation might respond to your objection, and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of the explanation’s merits.
Question Five (Reading: Cunliffe’s “Narrative Fiction and Epistemic Injustice”)
Zoe Cunliffe argues that narrative fiction can help to promote epistemic justice. Sketch either Cunliffe’s argument that narrative fiction can help promote testimonial justice or her argument that narrative fiction can promote hermeneutic justice. (Make sure you define “testimonial/hermeneutic justice”). Next, raise one objection to (or worry about) Cunliffe’s argument. Finally, consider how Cunliffe might respond to your objection and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of her argument.
Question Six: (Readings to consult: Alcoff’s “The Problem With Speaking For Others” and the collection of articles assigned for this week)
Some people claim it is problematic to write fiction that is about, or from the perspective of, people who are members of a social group that is not your own. First, explain how someone who thinks this could mount an argument for the claim that authors ought not “speak for others.” Next, raise an objection to that view. Finally, consider the strength of that objection and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of the claim that authors ought not speak for others.
Question Seven: (Reading: Noel Carroll, “Interpretation and Intention”)
Noel Carroll argues that Modest Actual Intentionalism provides the best account of fictional meaning and interpretation. What does Modest Actual Intentionalism involve, and what is one of its greatest strengths, when compared to other theories of meaning and interpretation? Next, raise an objection to Modest Actual Intentionalism. Finally, consider the strength of that objection and give an overall assessment (supported by reasons!) of Modest Actual Intentionalism.