In the introduction part of your paper, which will be a single paragraph, you should do the following:
Provide some details about climate change drawing upon your own knowledge, Sinnott-Armstrong, or
Hourdequin. The details should provide enough context to set up the main question of the paper.
Next, introduce the main question of the paper about individual moral obligations to address climate
change.
Provide a roadmap for your paper.
o This should be put in your own words and not use substantive phrasing directly from my
prompt. So, for example, in your roadmap for the paper, you shouldnt say: First, I briefly
explain Sinnott-Armstrongs reasons for thinking that we can have moral obligations to do
something collectively without a single person having moral obligations to do anything
individually. Why not? Because we want to know how you will phrase things.
Provide a detailed thesis statement related to your analysis.
o Dont just say: I agree with Hourdequin. Instead, say: I agree with Hourdequin because…
and give an outline of the reasons youll offer in your analysis. For your reasons, dont just say:
I agree with Hourdequin because her argument is strong. Instead, provide your reasons for
thinking her argument is strong.
In the reconstruction part of your paper, which will be multiple paragraphs, you should do the following:
First, briefly explain Sinnott-Armstrongs reasons for thinking that we can have moral obligations to do something collectively without a single person having moral obligations to do anything individually.
Explain how this point is related to climate change and his central example of joyguzzling.
Next, choose either the harm principle from section 3 or the virtue principle from section 4, and explain
that principle and how it might suggest we have an individual obligation to address climate change.
Then, show why he thinks the principle you chose doesnt entail an individual moral obligation to
refrain from joyguzzling.
o This part of your paper should include at least two direct citations to Sinnott-Armstrong. If you
provide a quotation, which is often the easiest and sometimes best way to cite a paper, explain
that quote in your own words and make sure the quote isnt longer than two to three lines (you
can always abridge quotes with ellipsis when you delete parts of it).
Third, explain Hourdequins response to Sinnott-Armstrong focusing on section 3 of her paper.
Specifically, explain how Hourdequin thinks the concept of integrity can generate an individual moral
obligation to reduce ones greenhouse gas emissions if we accept we have a collective obligation. If you
want, and have space, you can also appeal to what she says in section 4, but you dont have to.
o This part of your paper should include at least two direct citations to Hourdequin. If you
provide a quotation, which is often the easiest and sometimes best way to cite a paper, explain
that quote in your own words and make sure the quote isnt longer than two to three lines (you
can always abridge quotes with ellipsis when you delete parts of it).
In the analysis part of your paper, which will be multiple paragraphs, offer your own argument in favor of
either Sinnott-Armstrongs view that we dont have individual moral obligations to do anything about
climate change or Hourdequins view that we do. This should involve:
Offering an assessment of the strength or weaknesses of Hourdequins response to Sinnott-Armstrong.
As with the other topics, aim to offer two reasons (they can be related), explained and developed in two
separate paragraphs, for finding Hourdequins response or Sinnott-Armstrongs argument compelling
o Depending on who you support, your analysis might turn on the following questions:
Has Hourdequin sufficiently shown that the concept of integrity provides a good reason
to think we have an individual moral obligation to reduce our emissions?
Does Sinnott-Armstrong have a possible response that would answer Hourdequins
objections for which she wouldnt have a sufficient answer?
