***all text mentioned below can be found in the PDF attached
With a couple of exceptions, most of the texts we’ve read for the course so far involve an author arguing for a certain position, where that position is always more or less controversial. For example:
Norman E. Bowie, “Respecting the Humanity in a Person” [HW, 4]: “Downsizing is unethical because it violates the golden rule”
Arlie Hochshild, “Exploring the Managed Heart” [HW, 7]: “Flight attendants are victims of exploitation in a way that is somewhat similar to the exploitation of the child who had to work 16 hours a day in the wallpaper factory.”
Adam Smith, “On Human Exchange and Human Differences” [HW, 140]. “The specialization of labor is an inevitable consequence of human beings’ natural tendencies, and leads to an overwhelming improvement in their quality of life.”
Karl Marx, “Alienated Labor.” The specialization of labor gives rise to various forms of alienated labor that are profoundly harmful for human beings. (Also, since the specialization of labor is a consequence of free market capitalism / wage economy, these things are unjust)
Albert Carr, “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?” [HW, 36] “Business bluffing is not unethical and is even to be encouraged because business is a special domain (like a game) where the rules of ordinary morality do not apply.”
Other texts that would be suitable for this purpose: Harry G. Frankfurt, “On Bullshit”; “What is Unethical About Insider Trading?” Next week’s readings by Rawls or Nozick on distributive justice.
Choose one of these texts and compose a written critique of the author’s argument. Your essay should be 4-5 pages long, double spaced and should conform to the guidelines described below.
A philosophical critique may take place at different levels / vary in scope. Obviously, a critique of an author’s argument can be based on their conclusion. If there is someone whose position you strongly disagree with, you are necessarily committed to the position that their argument is invalid. But you don’t have to disagree with someone’s conclusion in order to critique their argument. Someone may argue for a conclusion you yourself support, but using an argument that you think is weak or does not fully capture the strength of the position. Sometimes a critique may take the form of a friendly suggestion for how the author can improve an argument you consider to be basically good.
Regardless of the nature and scope of your critique, your essay must include an analysis of the author’s argument. Before you can explain what you think is wrong with what the author is saying or how they got there, you must explain what it is you think they are saying AND how you think they are getting there. This means attempting to break down what the author is saying into its component parts or stages, e.g. analyzing the KEY PREMISES of the author’s own argument or any assumptions they are helping themselves to.
