1. What is the argument Luban offers for the hybrid war-law model? What is the argument he offers against it? Which side of the argument is more compatible with respect for human rights? What do you mean when you say 'right?" Does it matter which side is more compatible with respect for human rights? Explain.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense, use course concepts.
2. Why does Marquis think abortion is immoral? What is his argument? Thomson argues that abortion is permissible, at least in a wide range of cases. What are those cases and what is/are her arguments?
Do Marquis's arguments challenge those of Thomson, or can one endorse both positions without contradiction? Justify your answer in either case.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense, use course concepts.
3. HCC says the following: "We will be the opportunity institution for every student we serve - essential to our community's success."Broadly - and incompletely - 'success' can be interpreted in two ways here. What might they be? Is there a notion of 'success' that our community could achieve that is somehow not worth achieving?
Use the ideas from Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham to explicate the two potential meanings of 'success'. Then, explain how those meanings might yield different interpretations of the passage quoted at the beginning of this prompt. Which notion of 'success' is it proper for us to seek to achieve? Or, is there one that it is proper for us to seek to achieve? Defend your answer.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense, use course concepts.
Grading Rubric 1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis?
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly?
3. Does the paper attribute the correct view to the philosophers in question?
4. Is/are the philosopher's view presented with the appropriate level of detail? (For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)
5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion?
6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a hodgepodge of disparate ideas?
7. Does the conclusion tie together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a non-sequitur?
8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the college level?
9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion?
Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author's own work?