Paper Instructions (Online) PHIL1301 - Intro to Philosophy Professor LaMendola Submission Guidelines

You may receive a maximum of 30 points for this assignment. When this paper is completed, submit it via the dropbox on the course website: Submission Title – ex., IntroPhilo John Smith – Final Paper. File Name – ex., John_Smith_IntroPhilo_FinalPaper. All files must be submitted in .doc or .docx format. Encrypted, unreadable, or any other files that are not the correct type will receive an automatic “0” for the assignment. Please consult your campus OTS for a student copy of MS Word. Make sure your final submission is complete and that any comments that I added after it was returned to you have been removed. You will only be allowed to submit once! All submissions are final! I will receive drafts of your paper via the dropbox named “Paper Drafts,” which can be found in the “Final Paper” folder of the Course Content. I will return all drafts with comments, using the comment function in MS Word. Additional time for the assignment may be provided at my discretion. After the draft deadline, there is no guarantee I will be able to review your draft.

Choose only one of the assigned paper topics for your paper. What I am looking for in this paper assignment is for you to demonstrate the same skills of critical thinking, reading comprehension, and evaluation that you have attempted to demonstrate in the Discussion Boards over the course of the semester. Read each question carefully before deciding which question to respond to in your paper. There is no need to notify me of your choice, and you may change topics at any time. However, you should clearly state which question you are responding to in the title of your essay. You must present a well-organized paper that appropriately cites relevant material for each question. To ensure that you accomplish this goal it is recommended that you submit to me drafts and/or outlines via the dropbox. This is only recommended. Not required.

The first paragraph of your paper is the introduction. This paragraph is important because it contains your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the roadmap to your paper. If you have not yet completed your composition requirement, or are uncertain about what a thesis statement is; then please take the time to visit the following website - Thesis Statement Handout. If you have further questions regarding the matter, then you should contact me directly via <[email protected]>, or the appropriate campus Writing Center. Additionally, the conclusion of your paper should clearly restate your thesis and how you have gone about proving it.

Formatting the structure of your paper this way is commonly referred to as “the Five Paragraph Essay.” Use MLA formatting style for citations. You must cite your sources! Please see the listed on the syllabus or consult the Writing Center for help. You should use only the assigned material and class notes for this assignment. Make sure to place your works cited on a separate page at the end of your final paper. This page should be marked “Works Cited”. If you need to cite text, then please only do so in line – Do not use block quotes! The length of your paper must be between 1000 and 1500 words. Any work significantly under 1000 words will not be considered and will receive a score of “0”. Submissions over 1500 words will be truncated after 1500 words. Proofread and consider carefully before submitting.

At the top of the first page of your paper (on the page not in the margin) must be: Your Name, Final Paper (or Paper Draft), Intro to Philosophy (Online), Professor LaMendola, Current Semester. This should be followed by a blank line and then the question you are responding to in boldfaced type. Please make sure to clearly mark which question you are responding to at the top of your essay. No title is necessary other than this. Include your last name and page number in the header of each page after the first, e.g., “Smith 1”. All text must be formatted in Times New Roman 12pt, with standard margins and no extra spacing between paragraphs. Contact me if you have further questions.

Choose one of the following questions to respond to for your paper topic:

1. Consider the scenarios involving the unwilling moral agents of Jim and George in Bernard Williams’ “Utilitarianism & Integrity”. Describe the events that occur in each scenario in detail. Explain how these events relate to the Brain in a Vat scenario in Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine”. Additionally, explain how the thought experiments exemplify objections regarding consequentialist judgments. Finally, using the selection from Mill’s Utilitarianism, demonstrate how these objections might be unwarranted. Provide a detailed scenario that demonstrates your formulation of the unwarranted objections.
2. Describe Kant’s line of reasoning in which he arrives at the Categorical Imperative. Explain Kant’s reasoning in detail, citing outside sources if necessary. Discuss what this implies all agents must have access to and whether this is a reasonable constraint on moral agency. Additionally, consider the Case of the Inquiring Murder. Provide a scenario where law would allow you to tell the murderer which way the victim went, and analyze how this aligns with the Categorical Imperative.
3. Consider Thomas Nagel’s article, “Moral Luck”. State the Control Principle and describe the conditions under which moral luck occurs, including how it results from the Control Principle. Describe Nagel’s four kinds of moral luck with examples. Discuss how moral luck challenges Kantian ethics and its impact on consequentialist judgments, including scenarios illustrating conflicts and resolutions.

Paper For Above instruction

The selected topic for this paper is to analyze Bernard Williams’ scenarios involving Jim and George in “Utilitarianism & Integrity”, comparing them with Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine”, and evaluating objections to consequentialist ethics using Mill’s utilitarian perspective. This analysis aims to understand how thought experiments challenge moral judgments and whether these objections are justified.

In Bernard Williams’ moral dilemmas, Jim and George are unwilling agents caught in situations that pose conflicts between personal integrity and utilitarian calculations. Jim’s scenario involves a moral observer who is compelled to choose between personal integrity—refusing to mutilate a loved one—and the utilitarian obligation to maximize happiness. George’s case features a professional confronted with a choice to participate in an experiment that could produce great societal benefit but conflicts with his personal values. These detailed scenarios highlight the tension between individual morality and utilitarian imperatives. Williams argues that such scenarios reveal limits of consequentialism, especially when personal integrity is at stake.

Relation to Nozick’s Brain in a Vat scenario can be seen in that both challenge the reliability of experiential justifications for moral decisions. The Brain in the Vat hypothesis asks whether one can trust that their experiences reflect reality, just as Williams’ scenarios question whether moral agents can trust their moral intuitions when faced with utilitarian pressures. Both thought experiments gather objections to consequentialism by suggesting that moral agents might be manipulated or misled by outcomes that conflict with moral integrity or authentic experience.

Mill’s utilitarianism emphasizes that moral judgments should aim at maximizing happiness and that objections based on personal integrity may be overestimated. A detailed scenario could involve a moral agent who has to decide whether to sacrifice personal integrity for the greater good, demonstrating that such objections may be unwarranted if the overall happiness is achieved. The utilitarian perspective suggests that moral agents should prioritize societal well-being, even at personal costs, provided that the harm to integrity is manageable and rationally justified.

References

• Williams, Bernard. “Utilitarianism & Integrity.” In Moral Luck, edited by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press, 1979.
• Nozick, Robert. “The Experience Machine.” Philosophical Review, vol. 75, no. 2, 1966, pp. 42-45.
• Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Edited by Jeremy Bentham, 1863.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2020). Omission and Commission: The Fundamentals of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Nagel, Thomas. “Moral Luck.” In Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• O’Neill, Onora. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Wiggins, David. “Moral and Legal Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 68, no. 9, 1971, pp. 203-224.
• Dancy, Jonathan. Practical Reality. Harvard University Press, 2000.
• Hooker, Brad. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Approach. Princeton University Press, 2000.

At the end, include a References section in HTML (for example, an

References

heading followed by a list of references). In the

element, you MUST print exactly TITLE (the first 60 characters of CLEANED) with no extra words before or after and no modifications.