Cabrillo College
Intro. to Philosophy – Philo. 4
Claudia Close
Spring 2011
Paper topics #1
Choose 1 of the following questions. Each question is worth 50 points.
1.
In Alan Pakula’s 1982 movie, Sophie’s Choice, a concentration camp
prisoner (Meryl Streep) is forced by the Nazis to choose which of her two
children is to live and which is to die. The Nazi tells her that if she does
not choose, then both of them will be sent to the gas chamber. She
chooses her son to live because her daughter is already a bit sick and is
younger so she is less likely to survive the camp.
If she could have consulted with him, what would Kant have told Sophie to do? Include in your
defense reference to Kant’s concept of the “Practical Imperative.”
2.
In the 2008 movie, The Dark Knight, Batman (Christian Bale) faces a difficult
dilemma courtesy of his nemesis, the Joker. Batman can either save the
District Attorney, Harvey Dent, who plays a critical role in the efforts to fight
crime and chaos in Gotham City or he can save the woman he loves, Rachel
Dawes. Initially it seems clear that the only reason Rachel is targeted is
because she is important to both Dent and to Batman; she does not play a
critical role in preserving the welfare of Gotham. If Batman could consult
with J. S. Mill, which person would he advise Batman to save? Despite or
because the Joker reversed the directions for Dent and Dawes, Batman saves Dent but bad
consequences ensue when Dent finds that Dawes has been killed. Would Mill revise his advice
on which person should have been saved given this hindsight? Defend your answer with
specific reference to Mill’s concept of consequentialist justifications.
3.
In the 2008 movie, Twilight, our heroine, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) meets
up with two very different types of vampires. On one hand, there are the
Cullens, a group of vampires who refuse to consume human blood and refer
to themselves as vegetarians, existing on animal blood instead. On the other
hand is all the rest of vampire-dom, who do live on human blood. In the
saga, we are told that consuming human blood does make the vampire
stronger. These vampires are very long-lived – Bella’s love-interest, Edward
has not aged since 1918 and he is young compared to many of the others. Given their
longevity, vampires are in a position to become considerably superior to their human
counterparts. Do you think that if you could convince Nietzsche of this unlikely scenario, he
would agree to the necessity of abstaining from human blood? Defend your response with
reference to Nietzsche’s concept to the Ubermensch and their obligations to the “herd.”
4.
In the 1996 movie Extreme Measures, Dr. Guy Luthan (Hugh Grant) finds himself
unwittingly involved in a shocking research program to cure paralysis. His
mentor, Dr. Myrick has been doing illegal research using human subjects.
Without disclosing his methods to his “patients,” Myrick has purposely
severed the spinal cords of otherwise healthy (but homeless with no family)
men and then attempted to heal them through a combination of surgery and
medication. Although the results have been promising, there has been no
full recovery and many of the patients have died already. Guy finally
confronts Dr. Myrick about the research and accuses him of murdering his
test subjects. In the confrontation, Dr. Myrick replies: “People die every day. For what? For
nothing….What do we do? What do you do? ...You take care of the ones you think you can save.
Good doctors do the correct thing. Great doctors have the guts to do the right thing….” If Dr.
Luthan could have consulted with them, what would Aristotle have told him to do? Is this
something Aristotle would agree with about the actions of a great doctor? Defend your
response with reference to Aristotle’s notion of excellence and discuss specific virtues that
would be informative in determining the qualities of the “great doctor” in the context of the
polis.
5.
In James Cameron’s 2009 movie, Avatar, a paraplegic marine, Jake Sully
(Sam Worthington), dispatched to the moon Pandora on a unique mission
becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he has
come to feel is his home. The planet is rich with the valuable mineral
“unobtaineum” and the method of extraction will result in the destruction of
not only the Pandorran environment but also the indigenous people called
the Na’vi. Jake’s orders are to infiltrate the Na’vi and gather military
intelligence in exchange for surgery repairing his spine. However, Jake has
come to care for the Na’vi, especially Neytiri, with whom he has fallen in love. How would
theorists supporting the Ethic of Care advise Jake to act? Defend your response with specific
reference to what constitutes our obligations to others.
Instructions:
Answers should be one page double-spaced, using 12-point standard fonts (Times New Roman,
Universal or Courier, etc) with 1 inch margins. All papers are to be typed (or word-processed)
using a fresh printer ribbon with black ink. identify the question chosen in your header
(example: Paper 1, Question 1). Do not re-type the question. Please do not use cover sheets
or binder covers. Please use plain white or unbleached paper of the same weight as duplication
paper. I prefer for you to distinguish your work primarily through its content. I will take points
off for not following these directions. While I do not officially take off for spelling and
grammar, if it is so bad that it is distracting and obscures the meaning of your text, I tend to get
a bit cranky. For those of you using word processing programs, frequent spelling and
grammatical errors are inexcusable.
You do not have to have seen any of these movies to answer the questions asked; I have given
you the entire context you need for this short paper assignment. In fact, getting too caught up
in the details of these movies may well conflict with applying the central theories in your
responses. I am interested principally in whether you understand the theories and can use
them to resolve these theatrical dilemmas.
You might think of this as a three paragraph job: In your first paragraph all you need to do is
pose the question the main character faces, introduce the theory you will use to resolve this
dilemma and state your thesis. Second paragraphs should explain the relevant parts of the
theory and third paragraphs will be focused on specifically applying the theory to the context of
the movie. Please refer to the suggestions, sample and rubrics which follow for more complete
instructions.
Your papers are due back on the 16th (M/W) 17th (T/Th) of March. Late papers will be assessed
a minimum of 15% penalty for the first day late and an additional 10% for each subsequent
class day late.
General Suggestions, Sample & Rubrics for Writing Philosophy Papers1
How not to write your paper:
How to write your paper:
I.
The Introduction/Opening Paragraph
Authors often complain that the most difficult sentence to write is the first one. For these
assignments the first sentence or paragraph is about the context of the paper. You need to let
your reader know what the question is and a simple thesis statement is helpful. You do not
need to re-type the question. You do need to raise the issue and give your reader whatever
necessary context or background they need to understand your answer. Avoid grandiose and/or
meaningless statements like, “Since the dawn of time, humans have struggled with issues of
knowledge.” or, “Descartes’ theory of knowledge is similar and different from that of Locke’s.”
Also avoid biographical or historical information that is not essential to your answer. Look at the
following sample paper topic and read both a desirable and undesirable way of opening a paper.
Sample Topic: In one page, explain whether Descartes would accept the android character,
“Data,” from the Star Trek, the Next Generation television series as conscious.
A good opening: see sample paper
A not-so-good opening:
Descartes was a seventeenth century mathematician and devout churchman who was famous
for saying, “Cogito, ergo sum.” He argued for the existence of God, borrowing from both St.
Anselm and Aristotle. I don’t really get Descartes but I chose this question because I’m even
more lost on the others….
II.
1
Structure & The Body of the Paper
I value very crisp, clean structure. Each sentence should have just one topic, and each
paragraph should take on just one issue. The questions I ask usually can be broken down into
sub-issues. I usually think about how many jobs a question involves and allocate each job to just
one paragraph, ordering them into a logical order that advances your explanation or argument.
Each paragraph should open with a transition sentence helping your reader with the
Please note that these guidelines are for my class assignments. Individual instructors may have other format
preferences and you should consult with your teacher for the details before completing your assignment.
development of your thesis. In the sample question above, one could answer using either two
or three paragraphs, depending on the space allowed & your own writing style.
Example of structure using 3 paragraphs (see sample paper)
PP1: Introduction of topic (Descartes’ definition of consciousness), context (Data) &
thesis statement (Descartes would not agree that Data is conscious)
PP2: Descartes’ definition of consciousness & the mind
PP3:
Why Data would not be considered conscious according to Descartes
III.
Tone/Voice
Ever since George Carlin pointed out that “using your own words” would result in a private and
hence meaningless expression, I’ve had to give up on the phrase, however a certain degree of
originality is still important. Your task is to explain a concept as if you were the Teaching
Assistant for this class. If you simply repeat the text or my lecture, you haven’t helped your
imaginary student. You need to clarify the argument/concept in a way that demonstrates that
you really understand it and can express the same ideas in a way that is different than has
already been explained by the text or by me.
IV.
Conclusion/Last Paragraph
Because my paper assignments are all short, a summary conclusion is not necessary. Your last
paragraph is just the last issue you need to address in order to answer the question fully.
Summaries are necessary when the papers are longer just to insure that your reader winds up
where you intended and you want to draw conclusions on more complex multi-layered
arguments.
V.
Citations
I also value good scholarship, but a short paper, half of which is quotations is not sufficient for a
good expository assignment. The task is maintaining proper balance. Quoting is a way of
supporting your interpretation of an argument or theory. The length of the quote must be
appropriate to the length of the assignment: short papers require shorter quotes. Generally,
although I allow you to quote lectures, it is much more scholarly to quote the written word –
preferably directly from the text- whenever possible since that is verifiable in a way that the
spoken work is not. It is also preferable to choose quotations from the philosopher’s own work
rather than the editor’s secondary commentary. All quotations and close paraphrases (where
you are restating an author’s claims using very similar language) must be properly cited. For my
papers, endnotes, footnotes or a modified version of the MLA style is appropriate – just choose
one format and be consistent. (See sample paper & paper assignment for specific instructions)
VI.
Length
Part of the criteria for success is efficient use of the space allowed. If you write a half of a page
for a one page assignment, you have not satisfied this criterion. However, this is not an
invitation to use the additional space for stream-of-consciousness or irrelevant information not
pertinent to the assigned issue. If you are having difficulties with the length, it is usually
because you have not recognized or developed sufficiently the various issues involved.
Conversely, if your draft is too long, you need to whittle it down to just the relevant essentials,
perhaps editing out the anecdotes or redundancies; more is not always better! I am very willing
to help if you submit drafts sufficiently before the due date.
Cabrillo College
Philo.4
Gloria Mundi
Spring 2011
Paper #1, Sample Topic
Descartes defined consciousness as the property of the mind, or soul. For Descartes, a
human is essentially, “a thing which thinks.” (p.450) In this paper I will argue that for Descartes,
the character, “Data” in the television series, Star Trek the Next Generation, could not be
considered conscious. Data is an android – a machine.
Descartes argued that humans are composed of two substances, the immaterial mind and the
material brain and body. Descartes said that the mind was “entirely and absolutely distinct from
(his) body.” (p.443) For Descartes, the mind is the part of us that is conscious and is identified
with the immaterial soul. The mind cannot be accessed by anyone other than oneself. The
brain and body on the other hand are material, like a bio-machine (p.445) and as such are not
conscious but do occupy space and time. Without this substance, we would be merely
unconscious matter. Descartes treats animals in this fashion. In his Letters to Elizabeth,
Descartes wrote that animals were like “automata”, which he described “as reflex-driven
machines, with no intellectual capacities.” ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousnessanimal/ ) Descartes drew a distinction between merely sensing and perceiving as opposed to
understanding. (p.442)
In the television series, Star Trek the Next Generation, Data is a valued member of the crew,
solves problems, has friends and even keeps a pet cat called “Spot.” His behavior is complex
and he is clearly sensing and perceiving objects and people in his environment. However Data
is a human construct – the product of very clever bio-engineering. As such, Data cannot have a
soul which is given only to humans by God, thus Data cannot be conscious. (p.104) His behavior
is an extraordinarily clever mimicry of human behavior, caused by complex logarithms and not
by a conscious mind. Data’s difficulty with humor illustrates Descartes’ point, as Data never
really understands why a joke is funny.
Standards (Rubrics) for Grading Paper Assignments
Excellent (100-90% of points):
Well organized with strong structure:
The paper provides adequate context and the paragraphs flow logically from one to the next with each
paragraph taking on just one task. By “logical flow,” I mean that you should demonstrate how and
why one premise leads to the next and directly relates to the conclusion.
Clear focus
No irrelevant or “garden path” excursions. The paper answers what the question is asking and keeps
strictly to those issues.
Complete – Fully answers the question and/or includes all relevant premises
You will not get full credit if you answer only part of the question even if that part is really good! The
excellent paper includes all the relevant premises – with no logical leaps or missing supports. The
excellent answer is as thorough as possible making the most effective use of the space allowed.
Texturally correct – Stays true to the author’s intent/argument
While we don’t usually refer to philosophy answers as “right” or “wrong” (except on your objective
exams!), strong mischaracterizations are possible. The excellent characterization of an argument is as
close to the original intent as possible.
Clear – Explains the answer comprehensibly
The primary task of this assignment is to demonstrate that you have understood a theory or argument
by explaining it clearly. The best papers will make something clearer – more understandable without
oversimplifying or mischaracterizing the point
Effective use of language
I value straightforward, clear writing with no undefined jargon, tortuous grammar or derivative
language. I will not be awarding points for flowery style or effusive jargon. This means using
ordinary, garden-variety language, which is as simple and straightforward as possible. This also means
that you need to be using your own “voice” and not quoting or closely paraphrasing my lectures or the
texts. The excellent paper cites all quotes and close paraphrasing and supports those with
supplementary explanations.
Well Supported
Your central claims should be supported with reference to the text, and, if space allows, with examples
drawn from your own life or from newspapers, etc. These supports should be of appropriate length to
the assignment – short assignments imply very short, pithy quotes and very brief examples. Quotes are
best when taken from the philosopher’s own works rather than from the secondary commentary or
from lecture.
Demonstrates insight into the issue
I must admit that this is the most difficult to explain. The excellent paper will demonstrate a certain
level of discernment or understanding which goes beyond just explaining the argument. Insight means
that the paper documents the student really understanding what the issue is all about. To a certain
extent, the student has taken ownership of the concepts and has presented an explanation that is
uniquely their own.
Good (89-80% points)
The good paper will demonstrate all the above qualities but perhaps to a lesser degree or, will demonstrate some
of the above qualities excellently, but not all of the qualities will be presented at a consistently high level.
Satisfactory (79-70% points)
The satisfactory paper will present all of the above qualities but not as strongly as the good paper or, some
qualities may be stronger with some not as strong. Insight is not usually present.
Needs Work (69-60% points)
This paper is weak on many of the desired qualities.
Really Needs Work – Pretty Much Unacceptable (59-0% points)
This paper presents few if any of the desired qualities.