Philosophy 340 Second Paper

Your 8-10 page paper is due at the start of class on Thursday, December 14^th It should be at least 8 full pages.

Extensions will only be granted in extenuating circumstances; requests for extensions must be made to me in writing (email is OK) by noon the day before the paper is due. Late papers without extensions will be marked down as the syllabus describes.

You may choose one of the paper topics below or come up with one on your own. If you choose the latter option, you must approve your paper topic with me by Tuesday, December 12^th.

The grades I assign will mean the following:

A-range: Intense effort and compelling exposition, clearly presented, together with original arguments of one's own that are remarkably imaginative and thought-provoking; interesting and important objections to your view are given sufficient consideration and are presented fairly.

B-range: Compelling exposition, clearly presented, together with a significant number of imaginative, original arguments of one's own; interesting objections to your view are considered and are well described.

C-range: Visible effort, but with one or more of the following problems: significant misunderstanding; or unclear / unfocused presentation; or insufficient evidence of imaginative, original thought; or insufficient awareness of potential objections to your view.

D-range: Visible lack of effort.

I also strongly urge you to read the online handout “Guidelines for Writing a Philosophy Paper” (available on the coursepage), which outlines my expectations of a philosophy paper, as well as the online handout on common grammar mistakes.

Topics

1. Among the authors on globalization we read (besides Peter Singer), Paul Krugman, Jon Mandle, and Jagdish Bhagwati defend globalization, while William Greider and Edward Goldsmith oppose it, or at least want to modify it significantly. Choose two of these authors, one from each side, and write a paper evaluating their differences of view. Be sure to give and defend your own stance on the issues under discussion.

2. Peter Singer, in Chapter Five of his book One World, defends a very demanding moral duty of aid to the needy, regardless of nationality (e.g. the Bugatti Bob example he borrows from Peter Unger). By contrast, Richard Miller in “Beneficence, Duty, and Distance,” defends a much less demanding moral duty of aid. Whose view is closer to the truth, in your judgment, and why? What exactly are our duties to the needy?

3. According to Jon Mandle in Chapter Seven of his book Global Justice, global justice is concerned only with preventing absolute deprivation (this occurs when one’s human rights are violated); global justice is not concerned with relative deprivation between countries. Relative deprivation, on Mandle’s view, is a matter of justice only within a single state. Write a paper evaluating this view. Why does Mandle think this? What might someone who adopts a more cosmopolitan view of justice like Singer say in response? Who has the better argument, and why?

4. Should liberal democratic states fully tolerate states that aren’t themselves liberal democracies—fully tolerate them, that is, in the sense of allowing such states full membership within international institutions (e.g. the U.N. and the W.T.O.), honoring a principle not to intervene in such states’ domestic affairs, not hitting such states with punitive economic sanctions or tariffs, etc. ? Rawls and Mandle (pp. 84ff) say yes, we should tolerate non-liberal but still “decent” states. Even Singer (in Chapter Three, pp. 96-105) shies away from insisting that states need to be full democracies before being judged legitimate by the international community. Is this tolerant position right, or alternatively, does it amount to a failure of nerve, an undue lack of confidence in democratic principles? For instance, such tolerance would entail, say, judging as legitimate, and as deserving of full toleration, some states that denied women the vote, or denied religious minorities the vote, or didn’t allow them to run for public office, etc. Is such a state really deserving of toleration? If not, what should be done about such states?

5. We watched the DVD Mardi Gras Made in China in class. (You may check it out again from the IC Library—but if you do, please only keep it for a short time so that others may use it too.) Now watch the pro-globalization documentary Globalization is Good. You may watch it online by clicking here. What arguments are being made in each film? Which arguments are more persuasive? Discuss these questions, making references to at least two of the readings we have done on the topic of global justice and/or globalization.

6. In his article, “Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend” Thomas Pogge provocatively argues that even if we understand justice as imposing only so-called “negative” duties, we still have reason to endorse his idea for a Global Resources Dividend. What is Pogge’s argument? Is it successful? Why or why not? Defend your judgment.

7. According to Brian Barry in his article “Capitalists Rule, OK?”, if it is true that voters in a democracy genuinely have power over their rulers, then it is also true that capitalists have power over government too. Is this right? Why or why not? If it is right, what if anything is to be done about it? Defend your answers.

8. The United States chose not to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Why? Are the grounds it offered for refusing to sign good grounds? Defend your answer, along the way showing your awareness of Peter Singer’s discussion of this issue in Chapter Two of his One World.

9. One thing that makes the debate over global warming especially contentious is the specialized knowledge involved in the assessment of the environmental threat posted by greenhouse gases. Are laypeople essentially hostage to the views of experts? How should you decide which experts to trust? What implications does this dependency on experts have for the functioning of democracy, which (ideally, at least) vests ultimate power in the voters?

10. In Chapter Three of his book One World, Peter Singer discusses four charges against the WTO made by critics of that organization. Pick TWO of these and evaluate Singer’s discussion of them.

11. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, in his article “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations,” argues that there is no moral duty to refrain from pleasure drives in an SUV, despite the greenhouse gases they emit. Is this right, in your judgment? If not, what is the best defense of such a moral duty? How might Sinnott-Armstrong reply to you? (If you agree with Sinnott-Armstrong, imagine how a critic of his might best reply to his article, and then defend Sinnott-Armstrong against this critic.)

12. Choose a topic from the list of first paper topics (still available online) that is distinct in its subject matter from the paper you wrote on.