Author: admin

Requirements:
1000 word minimum (the word count does not include either the Works Cited page, or titling information).
A Works Cited page that follows proper MLA Guidelines. Papers that fail to include a Works Cited page will incur a 10-point penalty.
Direct textual evidence (utilized in the form of quotations with correct citations) must be used to support your position. Papers that do not use direct textual evidence will incur a 20-point penalty.
All papers must be submitted in a Word (.doc) file format and uploaded to SafeAssign. Google Docs submissions are not accepted. If I cannot open your file attachment, I cannot grade your paper which means it will earn a zero.
All of the sources you use should be scholarly. The following sources are not acceptable for use: Wikipedia, YouTube, Diffen.com, Quora, SparkNotes, Philosophy Now. If you have a question about whether or not to use a source, a good rule of thumb is to either ask or not use it.
Choose ONE of the Following:
1.) Are Marx and Engels Right?* : In the first section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels give a long series of indictments of bourgeois society, lists its abuses of power, and tells how it exploits the working class (the Proletariat). Argue one of the following positions:
A.) Marx and Engels are correct in their criticisms of capitalism/the bourgeoisie; offering reasons and evidence why, of course. Please note that supporting this argument by simply restating what they say is insufficient.
B.) Marx and Engels are incorrect because capitalism does have many redeemable qualities you will show evidence for in your paper.
*Note this paper topic is only referring to Marx and Engels’ criticisms of capitalism, and whether the criticisms are correct. The topic at hand is not what Marx and Engels proposed regarding a communist revolution, general strike, etc. In other words, a paper that asserts “Marx and Engels are wrong about their criticisms of capitalism because communism/socialism is bad” isn’t on topic and will be graded as such. To further clarify: let’s say Marx and Engels were doctors, it is possible that they’re correct about their “diagnosis,” but wrong about the “cure” or “treatment” they propose…which is why we should keep the discussions separate, for this paper topic, and only focus on the “diagnosis.” After all, if they’re wrong about their criticisms, there’s no point in a “revolution.”
2.) Rawls v. Nozick: John Rawls’s publication of A Theory of Justice revitalized Anglo-American political philosophy through a robust defense of something like a “welfare state” (used without a negative meaning). Robert Nozick, on the other hand, takes issues with the redistributive measures such a Rawlsian society would need to undertake. Given these things, which of the two views of “justice” is more defensible and why?
3.) A Re-evaluation? Nietzsche is often read as offering powerful criticisms of traditional or commonly held beliefs of morality. To what extent are his criticisms valid and, more importantly, what does this mean for us? Are ethics and morality a waste of time, or is there still hope in a “re-evaluation” of values?
4.) A Feminist Virtue Ethics? While certainly very important, Aristotle’s articulation of the virtues and their roles in our lives seem to be inherently lacking because they fail to provide a consideration for a multiplicity of viewpoints. In other words, discussions of “virtue” are typically done with masculine/patriarchal/exclusivist overtones. Annette Baier and other feminists offer a powerful and productive way of reformulating our “normal” views of what these things (virtues) actually are. Do you think, therefore, that Aristotelian virtue ethics is improved upon by care ethics/feminist virtue ethics, or was it doing alright on its own?
Miscellaneous Caveats:
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 your position.
Do NOT give personal examples and other anecdotal evidence when writing argumentative papers. I do not mean to suggest your relationships or experiences are trivial, only that we’ll need to keep the papers focused on the prompts.
In academic writing it is generally advisable to write from a position of near-certainty regarding one’s own position, meaning 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.
Finally, because this is a formal assignment, please use formal language throughout the course of your paper. Do not use contractions and Internet lingo.