Assignment 2: Argument Reconstruction Write a paper where you reconstruct one (1) of the arguments below

Subject:PhilosophyPrice: Bought3

Share With

Assignment 2: Argument Reconstruction

Write a paper where you reconstruct one (1) of the arguments below. Your paper should:

1. Begin with a brief summary, in your own words, of the argument.

2. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is in your own words and valid

3. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.

4. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.

5. Have a brief concluding paragraph where you consider which premise an opponent of this argument would try to deny.

(1) HEATH ON PROMISES

“Imagine a Hobbesian state of nature1, in which everyone treats everyone else abysmally. Such conduct is immoral. Now imagine that, in this state of nature, each person solemnly swears to stop pursing his own interests, and to begin pursuing the interests of the person next to him. What changes? From the moral point of view, nothing much. It is still the war of all against all, except that now it is being carried out by proxy. Certainly the mere fact that each person is acting “altruistically”—advancing the interests of her neighbor, rather than her own—is not enough to transform this into a morally acceptable state of affairs. If it could, then the simple act of promising would permit unlimited “laundering” of immoral acts into moral ones. (Heath, pp. 540)

[Identifying the conclusion of this argument is tricky. Take your time on it.]

(2) HIMMA ON RIGHTS VS. CONSEQUENCES

“Affirmative action defenders often [cite] the beneficial consequences of affirmative action, but this line of argument implicitly concedes the dispositive point to opponents. As Ronald Dworkin has shown, a right can be outweighed by another right, but never by consequences: "[t]he claim that citizens have a right to free speech . . . impl[ies] that it would be wrong for the Government to stop them from speaking, even when the Government believes that what they will say will cause more harm than good." Thus, if preferences violate a right, they are wrong no matter what their consequences might be.” (Himma p. 278)

1This refers to a hypothetical scenario imagined by Hobbes where there are no laws, rulers, or institutions, and everyone is always only looking out for themselves at the expense of others.