1.1000 word minimum (the minimum word count does not include the Works Cited or Titling Information).
2.Works Cited Page and Titling information (Your Name, Date, Course, etc.). Papers that do not contain a Works Cited Page will incur a significant penalty..
3.Direct textual evidence (properly-cited quotations) must be used. Papers that do not use direct textual evidence will incur a significant penalty.
.Choose ONE of the Following:
Option One: Rival Epistemologies
Kant’s Idealism and Hume’s Empiricism are two foundational conceptions of the ways in which knowledge is, or can be, obtained. Which of the two do you find more convincing, and why? If your critique of one is predicated on a perceived impossibility about a certain kind of knowledge (or all knowledge in general), please be direct in saying so.
Option Two: Two Systems of Ethics
Kant’s version of deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism essentially sucked all the air out of the room for the past 150-200 years of ethical discussion. Based on your understandings of specifically Kant and Mill’s versions of their respective ethical systems, which do you find more convincing, and why? If you would prefer to say “neither” or “some combination,” please be very specific about what issues you would raise.
Option Three: States of Nature
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau offer very different conceptions of the “state of nature,” a hypothetical setting for their justifications of the ordering of society. Which justification do you find more compelling, and, based on your answer, what would the implications be for an overall hostile (Hobbesian) world, a (Lockean) world characterized by abundance, or a world of increasing inequality (Rousseau)?
Miscellaneous:
Arguments that differ to ones we have discussed in class will not be penalized. I welcome any and all positions, provided they are supported with relevant details, premises, arguments, etc. I will say again, however, that merely having an opinion does not make said opinion justifiable, defensible—or even good. As such, your paper would need to advance reasons you hold this position, and show how you are making the argument..
Please do not try to write a paper to impress me, or one that you think I will like to hear/agree with. I care more that you have each struggled with these issues than just heard these things that I and other authors have said and regurgitated them..
Do NOT give personal examples and other anecdotal evidence when writing argumentative papers. I do not mean to suggest your relationship with whomever or your experiences are trivial; only that these things will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to help convey your position and make your argument..
Do not cite examples from class discussion. It’s fine if you use materials we’ve used in class, but this is supposed to be an exercise for you to do. .
In academic writing it is generally advisable to write from a position of near-certainty regarding one’s own position. This is not to say you should write “I’m right, dammit!” but that you should avoid language that implies hesitancy on your part. In other words write, “I assert…” “It is my position…”; NOT “I hope in/feel/believe.” The latter implies you aren’t sure what you’re arguing, or that your position is too wishy-washy..
Please refrain from using valorized language or to assume, carte blanche, the person about whom you’re writing is male unless you have information otherwise. .
Finally, because this is a formal assignment, please use formal language throughout the course of your paper. Do not use contractions and Internet lingo
Use Peer-Reviewed, Scholarly Sources
The post Rival Epistemologies appeared first on EssayBishop.