Harvard University Self Defense and Right to Kill Paper This is a four paged paper on a reading about self defense. All of the info you need are in the two

Harvard University Self Defense and Right to Kill Paper This is a four paged paper on a reading about self defense. All of the info you need are in the two links and the I would like for you to go off of prompt 2. The assignment is a four page paper–doubled spaced with 12-point font and normal margins. As such, it
should four pages. If you write slightly more, that is fine, but it should be less than five full pages long.
You should start your paper with an introduction—this should be short and concise. You should literally
write, “In this paper I will argue that ____” and then give me a brief roadmap to the rest of the paper.
For the rest of the paper you should follow the format of the fours sentence paper.
The first substantive part of the paper should be an explication of the view that you’ll be arguing against.
Again, this should be concise—only include details that are relevant. However, you should also be
thorough—part of the point of this part of the paper is to show me that you understood the paper that
you’re engaging with.
The second part of the paper should be your original argument. This should not be an idea that comes
from the paper that you’re engaging with.
Then you’ll provide an objection to your argument. You should think of this paper as a conversation
between you and the author that you’re engaging with. Really try to imagine, based on what you’ve
read, what they would say in response to your argument.
Finally, provide a reply to the objection. This should be directly in response to the objection.
Finish with a short conclusion.
You can choose your own topic if you wish or use the prompts that I have provided. The topic should
come from the readings assigned before July 10 (terrorism). If you choose your own topic you should
follow the model of the prompts that I provided.
Prompt #1
What is Alexandra’s definition of political pacifism? What is Alexandra’s definition of personal refusal?
How are these distinct? Why does Alexandra think pacifism is practical (you don’t need to provide every
argument that Alexandra gives, pick one or two of the best arguments to outline here)? What are the
defining features of satyagraha according to Gandhi (you should include at least three central features)?
Why does Gandhi think satyagraha is effective? This part of the paper should provide a thorough but
concise explanation of Alexandra’s account of pacifism and Gandhi’s account of satyagraha.
Provide your own argument for whether satyagraha is a form of political pacifism, personal refusal, or
something different. If it is something different, be very clear exactly what you think is the relationship
between satyagraha and political pacifism and personal refusal–how is it different from/similar to each?
Regardless of what you argue, you should provide reasons for the argument.
Provide an objection to your argument. If you think satyagraha is a form of personal refusal, what
reasons might someone give to think that it is a form of political pacifism? If you think satyagraha is a
form of political pacifism, what reasons might someone give to think that it is a form of personal
refusal? etc.
Provide a response to the objection. This part of the paper should be a direct response to the objection.
Prompt #2
What is Thomson’s principle of self-defense? Her principle explains why it is permissible to “fight back”
against (and kill) a Vicious Aggressor who would otherwise kill you. But how (and why) does it apply to
the Innocent Aggressor and Innocent Threat? What (and why) does Thomson’s principle say about killing
bystanders in self-defense? This part of the paper should be a thorough (but concise explanation of
Thomson’s view.
Provide an argument for a different principle of self-defense (it can be similar, but should cut across the
cases differently). You should clearly state what the new principle is and explain how your principle
deals with the cases above. This part of the paper should provide a novel argument in response to
Thomson’s view.
Provide an objection to your argument. This part of the paper should be novel, but should be based on
what you imagine, given what you’ve read, Thomson would say in response to your argument.
Provide a reply to the objection. This part of the paper should also be novel. It should be obviously
related to the objection that it is replying to.
The assignment is a four page paper–doubled spaced with 12-point font and normal margins. As such, it
should four pages. If you write slightly more, that is fine, but it should be less than five full pages long.
You should start your paper with an introduction—this should be short and concise. You should literally
write, “In this paper I will argue that ____” and then give me a brief roadmap to the rest of the paper.
For the rest of the paper you should follow the format of the fours sentence paper.
1. They say __________.
2. I say __________ because __________.
3. One might object __________.
4. I reply __________.
The first substantive part of the paper should be an explication of the view that you’ll be arguing against.
Again, this should be concise—only include details that are relevant. However, you should also be
thorough—part of the point of this part of the paper is to show me that you understood the paper that
you’re engaging with.
The second part of the paper should be your original argument. This should not be an idea that comes
from the paper that you’re engaging with.
Then you’ll provide an objection to your argument. You should think of this paper as a conversation
between you and the author that you’re engaging with. Really try to imagine, based on what you’ve
read, what they would say in response to your argument.
Finally, provide a reply to the objection. This should be directly in response to the objection.
Finish with a short conclusion.
You can choose your own topic if you wish or use the prompts that I have provided. The topic should
come from the readings assigned before July 10 (terrorism). If you choose your own topic you should
follow the model of the prompts that I provided.
Prompt #1
What is Alexandra’s definition of political pacifism? What is Alexandra’s definition of personal refusal?
How are these distinct? Why does Alexandra think pacifism is practical (you don’t need to provide every
argument that Alexandra gives, pick one or two of the best arguments to outline here)? What are the
defining features of satyagraha according to Gandhi (you should include at least three central features)?
Why does Gandhi think satyagraha is effective? This part of the paper should provide a thorough but
concise explanation of Alexandra’s account of pacifism and Gandhi’s account of satyagraha.
Provide your own argument for whether satyagraha is a form of political pacifism, personal refusal, or
something different. If it is something different, be very clear exactly what you think is the relationship
between satyagraha and political pacifism and personal refusal–how is it different from/similar to each?
Regardless of what you argue, you should provide reasons for the argument.
Provide an objection to your argument. If you think satyagraha is a form of personal refusal, what
reasons might someone give to think that it is a form of political pacifism? If you think satyagraha is a
form of political pacifism, what reasons might someone give to think that it is a form of personal
refusal? etc.
Provide a response to the objection. This part of the paper should be a direct response to the objection.
Prompt #2
What is Thomson’s principle of self-defense? Her principle explains why it is permissible to “fight back”
against (and kill) a Vicious Aggressor who would otherwise kill you. But how (and why) does it apply to
the Innocent Aggressor and Innocent Threat? What (and why) does Thomson’s principle say about killing
bystanders in self-defense? This part of the paper should be a thorough (but concise explanation of
Thomson’s view.
Provide an argument for a different principle of self-defense (it can be similar, but should cut across the
cases differently). You should clearly state what the new principle is and explain how your principle
deals with the cases above. This part of the paper should provide a novel argument in response to
Thomson’s view.
Provide an objection to your argument. This part of the paper should be novel, but should be based on
what you imagine, given what you’ve read, Thomson would say in response to your argument.
Provide a reply to the objection. This part of the paper should also be novel. It should be obviously
related to the objection that it is replying to.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment