Term Paper
Your term paper is meant to build on your earlier writing assignments, explicating the
philosophical ideas of those we’ve read in class and then using these to analyze a specific
case study and ultimately offer and defend your own argument. The assignment is meant to
embody all of our course learning goals (though the fourth is largely implicit).
In order to do this, your paper will essentially do three things:
1. Present a specific case.
a. Just as with the Case Study Analyses, be both concise and strategic with
regard to the details that you present.
b. In addition to citing the existence of the case from a journalistic or other
public-facing source, you need to cite a second, more technical source.
For example, if your case looked at an instance of a patient’s battle with a
hospital to be released, then in addition to say, a news article, you would
want to dig deeper and cite a more technical source—for example, the
hospital in question’s written policy, court rulings on the case, a health policy
study on the nature of such hospital policies, a health care organization’s
formal recommendations with regard to releases, etc. The purpose of this
requirement is to force you to go beyond the details of the news story and
become more informed on the complexities of the case itself.
c. Remember that almost any case contains multiple bioethical themes that
are worth exploring, but you should narrow in and focus on only one of
these. Additionally, certain topics are far too large and complex to
satisfactorily tackle in a short term paper (e.g., euthanasia, abortion, health
care). Instead, you should narrow in on some specific aspect as it relates
to the case in question.
2. Explicate the work of two of the philosophical texts we’ve read.
a. You are welcome to cite and make use of Vaughn, but doing so does not count
as one of the philosophical texts we’ve covered. Cite and explicate two of
the primary sources read for class.
b. Once again, be strategic in what you use.
c. Be careful not to cite something as a mere “check,” technically fulfilling this
assignment. The point is to use the richness of others’ philosophical
discussions as a means help you and your reader explore the richness and
complexity of the topic itself.
3. Analyze the case in question.
a. The point of the details of the case that you present and the work of the
philosophers that you explicate is to allow you to substantively analyze the
case in question. Help your reader to understand the moral nature of the
issue and get beyond what is superficially apparent.
b. The analysis should also serve to setup your argument. Employ the
philosophical principles or theories and layout the moral geography in such a
way that you can offer a compelling argument that draws upon the analysis.
4. Argue for a specific conclusion.
a. The argument itself won’t take up much room—perhaps a short paragraph.
The real key, as can be seen in most of our readings, is development. Shore
up weak premises, defend controversial ones, explain background
assumptions, argue on behalf of the plausibility of these assumptions,
consider objections and respond to them. Develop the argument. This
should on average be about half of the paper
b. This later part—considering substantive objections and responding to
them, is a requirement in this paper. You can either pick one thorny
objection, or perhaps consider two less thorny objections. Sometimes the
objections are weighty enough that they demand we modify our original
position. Sometimes, in responding to the objections, we reinforce our
original position. In either case, the objections and our responses are ways of
moving the objection forward.
c. Remember that the argument is your argument, and not a vague other’s
argument (i.e., do not note “a utilitarian would argue…). This paper is an
opportunity for you to intellectually work through your own thoughts and
come to a conclusion that you actually hold. Likewise, the objection(s) that
you consider is not an objection to something abstract, but an objection to
your actual argument. In general, it should be an objection to one of your
specific premises or an objection to your claim that the premises lead to your
conclusion.
In order to doo all of this well, you’re being given more room to work: 1400-1800 words.
Even so, remember to write concisely and in particular not to wax longwinded in
presenting the case. Note: it is not only ok, but you are welcome to use material from
earlier papers (whether a specific case or argumentative approach or recycling material
from an earlier analysis or explication of a philosopher’s work). You are also welcome to
start over entirely.
OUTLINE:
The outline should be no more than a single page and should provide details on each of the
three sections listed above. You do not need to work anything out in detail (e.g., no need to
provide the fully worked out argument), but the general outlines of your thinking and how
you plan to proceed should be made clear. In particular, the following should be clear:
• the specific case
• the details you find relevant
• your thesis
• the philosophers you plan to use and just what from those philosophers you think
significant
• a tentative conclusion and initial reasons for supporting that conclusion
ARGUMENTATIVE SKETCH
This ought to be a formal, numbered argument of the kind that we have seen in the
readings and have worked together on in class. It will likely be a mix of (nonmoral) facts
together with specific moral claims (ought/value/principle claims), but must at least
include the latter. Although presented in numbered format, the richer and more carefully
worked out the better. For example, your argument sketch might look something like the
following:
1. Nonmoral fact concerning the case in question
a. Important detail 1
b. Important detail 2
2. General moral principle
a. Relevant nuanced detail from Philosopher P
b. Relevant constraint on moral principle from Philosopher Q
3. My own moral claim with regard to this case
a. Support 1 for this claim
b. Support 2 for this claim
4. The conclusion
5. Objection to 3a
a. My response, showing the objection fails
6. Objection to 3b
a. My response, acknowledging the importance and weight importance of this
objection, but showing that its application in this case is handled with an
important caveat with regard to #3
RUBRICS
Remember, I don’t attach points or use these rubrics in a rigid analytic sense, but I’ve
articulated them in order to help myself and students to see some of the clear benchmarks
and also a spectrum of writing quality on key elements in these papers. You should use
them to help you evaluate and calibrate your writing.
Writing
mechanics
Explicating
Arguments
Superior
The thesis actually
organizes the whole
paper—meaning the
structure and
coherence of the
paper is clear
throughout and
transitions elegantly
made; the reader is
not left to make
abstractions or guess
at the relevance of
any passage
In a similar manner,
the overall relevance
of the argument is
made clear,
including its
connection to the
author’s main thesis
and themes; if
ß
Progressing
ß
A strong thesis is
An organizing
articulated, not only thesis is clear and
identifying the
easily
purpose of the
identifiable. All
essay, but also
necessary
alluding to the
citations (and
student’s reasons or bibliography) are
arguments. A
given, including
version or variation page numbers
of the thesis is also when relevant
clear at the end,
tying the essay
together
Additionally, key
Additionally, the
assumptions or
overall logic or
enthymematic
connections are
premises are made
made; premises
explicit, and a
are identified as
nuanced reading of premises, and
the importance and how these work
plausibility of the
to support the
Basic
Essay is free
from distracting
grammatical and
other
typographical
errors; standard
writing
conventions are
used
A significant
passage of text
containing an
argument is
identified; key
quotes are
highlighted and
explanations are
Analysis
Writing a
philosophical
argument
relevant the
argument is
contextualized
within the overall
historical dialogue
Additionally, the
complexity of how
and why these moral
principles and
frameworks apply is
made clear, leading
to a nuanced
interpretation of the
moral geography of
the case in question
In doing so,
manifests a nuanced
grasp of what’s at
stake in the
argument; the
argument is polished
and compelling;
complexity and
limits of position are
acknowledged;
considers
substantive and
direct objections and
offers plausible
responses that
further develop the
argument
various premises is
given
conclusion is
made explicit
attempted
The relevance of
specific moral
principles or ethical
frameworks and
their relation to the
writing of specific
philosophers is
made clear; these
principles and
frameworks are not
only identified with
specific
philosophers, but
are carefully drawn
from their actual
texts
Additionally,
makes assumptions
explicit, recognizes
weak or
controversial
premises or
ambiguities, and
works to support
these; likewise
considers and
responds to
objections
Additionally, less
obvious
assumptions,
implications, or
claims are
identified and
shown to be at
play in the case,
setting up
various
interpretations of
what’s really
going on or
possible
positions that one
might take
Additionally,
offers reasons as
premises, laying
them out in a
manner that
highlights the
logical
connections
between reasons
in a manner that
clearly supports
the conclusion
A relevant case is
identified and
conspicuous
bioethical
assumptions,
implications, and
claims are
indicated
Not only urges a
reader to accept a
given position or
claim, but offers
substantive
reasons for doing
so; position and
reasons remain
basic or
simplistic
Purchase answer to see full
attachment