Final paper

Write about six to eight pages (double-spaced) on one of the following topics, or one of your own choosing (with prior approval from instructor). The paper must carefully lay out the problem, stating the relevant authors' positions and arguments, and must also include original work.

It is appropriate, though not mandatory, to use third party sources on this assignment. Every reference must be listed in a bibliography. If you'd like advice finding third party sources, let me know.

Submit the paper to my box in the philosophy department by 3:00pm on May 7.

1. Several of our authors (Kant, Singer, Feinberg and Goodpaster) have written on the notion of moral considerability, to use Goodpaster's term. Summarize and criticize each author's position and arguments. Which author (if any) has come closest to settling the question of who counts, morally speaking?
2. Wolf argues that, even if determinism is true, we may nonetheless be morally responsible for what we do. What are the conditions that would be necessary and sufficient for moral responsibility, per Wolf? Compare this argument to Taylor's (and/or Strawson or Nagel). Does she adequately address the hard determinist's claim that determinism and responsibility are incompatible?
3. Taylor, Strawson and Nagel all argue that moral responsibility is at best a problematic thesis (at least, for Taylor, given that determinism is true). Summarize and criticize these arguments. In the end, is it feasible that we are morally responsible? (Optional question: If not, what practical consequences ought we draw?) If space does not permit a full treatment of all three authors, then pick two.
4. Tooley makes the surprising argument that very young infants have no right to life. Discuss and criticize his argument regarding necessary conditions for a right to life. Also, analyze the arguments of each of the authors Kant, Singer, Feinberg and Goodpaster to infer the point at which a (potential) human being has a "serious" right to life. In so doing, try to rebut each argument from Tooley's point of view. Which author draws the most plausible conclusion in your opinion?
5. What is the distinction between Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism? Smart argues that, in fact, restricted utilitarianism is irrational; that is, a rational utilitarian must conclude that extreme utilitarianism is the superior theory. Why is this? Hooker also addresses the problems of rule-consequentialism. Summarize and criticize his arguments, finally concluding whether restricted utilitarianism is a viable moral theory.