Introduction to Philosophy, sample thesis statements
The final paper is a position paper, in which you give arguments for a position; it is not a research paper. If you want to bring in additional material from outside the class readings, you may do so, but only if it contributes to your argument. (However, you might want to check with me to see whether the material is appropriate.) You don't need to bring in additional material, and I don't want this paper to be an exercise in finding out and explaining what other people thought about the philosophers and topics we've studied. Instead, this is your chance to give your own arguments about the material we've studied.
I want you to give your opinion. However, you need to give reasons for your opinions, and your discussion should take, as its starting point, the arguments of the philosophers we've studied this semester. In addition, it should demonstrate an understanding of these arguments.
As always, you should explain things clearly enough that somebody not already familiar with the class material, like your ignorant but intelligent roommate, would understand what you're saying. Another good technique is to try to think of possible objections to what you're saying and to reply to those objections. What would Paley, or Epicurus, or Kant, or Norcross say against you? Having an actual ignorant roommate (or a classmate) look over your paper to raise objections, and to spot obscure passages, can be very helpful.
I've also posted additional paper writing guidelines
Note: These are only suggestions for possible paper topics, to get you thinking, plus some of the questions it might be helpful to address during the course of your paper. However, these aren't binding; feel free to adapt these to your own needs.
Some sample thesis statements:
- Morality and the Desire for Happiness. Kant would say that the actions of somebody who acts 'justly' because of a desire for happiness or pleasure have 'no moral worth.' In fact, even if that person acts justly because of a desire for the happiness of others, Kant would still say that person's actions have no moral worth. Why does he think this? How do you think Epicurus would respond to Kant? Evaluate what both Kant and Epicurus would say. With whom do you agree (if either), and why? What do you think is the proper place of desire in one's motivations to act morally? (For this question, you can also bring in Mill if you wish. )
- The Nature of Mind. What sort of thing does Epicurus (or Carruthers) believe the mind is, and why? Why does Nagel think the identity theory isn't true? Evaluate their positions. With whom do you agree, and why? If neither, what sort of thing do you think the mind is, and why? In formulating your answer, try to think of the strongest objection against the position that you'll be advocating, and respond to it. (You can also bring in Patricia Churchland, if you read ahead. Don't feel you need to discuss all of these people.)
- Material Goods and Happiness. Epicurus says that he can be as happy as Zeus if he has bread and water, and he thinks that the pursuit of luxury is incompatible with attaining happiness. Epicurus is down on 'materialism' (in the ethical, not the metaphysical sense). Why is that? Give his arguments. Do you believe that the pursuit of material goods, wealth, etc., is an impediment to achieving happiness? Why or why not? If you disagree with Epicurus, make sure that you say why. What is the proper place of material goods (and the pursuit of material goods) in the happy life? Consider (and reply to) the strongest objections to your position that you can think of.
- Epicurus' ethics. Look at some area of Epicurus' ethics in particular, and evaluate what he says. Some possible topics include:
- Is one's own pleasure the only thing with intrinsic value to oneself? Evaluate
Epicurus' arguments for this.
- The nature of pleasure, and its connection with desire-satisfaction, according
to Epicurus. Is he right? (tranquillity and lack of pain themselves being
pleasures, the superiority of mental to bodily pleasures, the relationship
between mental and bodily pleasures, etc.)
- Epicurus' account of the value (instrumental) and necessity of the virtues for
obtaining a pleasant life. Are all of the virtues really just forms of prudence?
Are they necessary for achieving a pleasant life? If Epicurus were consistent,
should he recommend a vicious/'bad' life?
- Friendship. Does Epicurus correctly describe the necessity and nature of
friendship? Is one truly a friend if one treats one's friends well for self-serving
- The gods. Is believing that there are no gods/no God that take an interest in
our affairs, that human existence has no purpose beyond what we give it via
our desires, and that we are result of 'blind' forces, really conducive to having
a tranquil life, as Epicurus believes?
- Eating factory farm-raised meat.
- Divine Command Theory
- Ethical Relativism
- Epicurus is wrong when he argues that there cannot be justice with regard to non-human animals. Certain ways of treating animals are unjust, even if we have no agreements with them.
- If death is annihilation, then it can indeed be a great evil, because an early death can cause one to accomplish much less in life than one would have otherwise.
- If one does the morally right thing only because doing so in is one's self-interest, then one's actions have no moral worth.
- In his ethics, Epicurus cannot account for the way that we should treat our friends. True friends do not treat their friends well just because doing so helps them to get pleasure for themselves.
- There is an immaterial soul, that exists separately from the body and survives its death.
- The Divine Command Theory of Ethics is not refuted by the type of question that Socrates asks Euthyphro. Actions can be right or wrong becauseGod commands or prohibits them. In fact, without God's commands, there can be no basis for ethics.
- Eating meat from a factory farm is morally acceptable.
Return to the course page.