Your paper is on Peter Singer, "Equality for Animals." Here are some guidelines:
This is not to be a summary of the entire paper. It is to be a summary and analysis of Singer's major arguments. It should focus much more on the early parts of his article than the later parts, since this is where his major arguments are located.
Section I: Argument summary (the largest section): (the following are points and questions must be addressed)
What is Singer's main conclusion. Be as specific as possible. Remember that a conclusion is a claim that the author is trying to prove. It is not simply the topic.
How does Singer support his main conclusion? In other words, what are his premises?
What is the "principle of equal consideration of interests"?
How does this principle relate to differences in gender and race?
How does the principle relate to how we treat animals?
How does the capacity to suffer relate to his argument?
Why can't we treat animals differently based on their mental capacity?
Speciesism in practice; what are his arguments concerning these things?
Animals as food
Experimenting on animals
The rest of the article does not need to be summarized, but it needs to be read and understood before the critique is written. This will help you avoid the possibility of misunderstanding his position as you proceed.
Section II: Critique:
Does Singer have enough support for his conclusions? Are his premises weak, strong, or somewhere in between? Defend you answers in detail. Make sure not to commit errors in reasoning, especially the fallacies we talked about in class!
Section III: Your argument:
How do you think animals should be treated? Should they be eaten? If so, what should be the conditions of their farms? Also, should we use them for experimentation? Give detailed support for your conclusions. Also, make sure that your arguments take into account what Singer has said. Again, make sure not to commit errors in reasoning, especially the fallacies we talked about in class!
Your paper is on James Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.". Here is an outline:
Section I: Argument Summary: (at least one paragraph on each of these major headings)
What is the main argument for cultural relativism? Remember, this may not be the position that Rachels actually advocates.
What is Rachels' main conclusion regarding cultural relativism? Does he say it should be accepted or rejected? He does answer this question! Get it right!
What are his reasons (premises) for his conclusion?
Their argument is unsound
The consequences of relativism
Less disagreement than it seems; common values
Does Rachels think we can judge other cultures? If not, why not? If so, then how?
Section II: Critique:
Does Rachels evaluate cultural relativism correctly? Does he have good reasons for accepting or rejecting it? You focus in this section should be on the arguments in section 3 above.
For this section and the next, DO NOT SIMPLY LIST YOUR BELIEFS/OPINIONS. DO NOT CRITIQUE THE AUTHOR'S WRITING STYLE. If you think his arguments are good, then provide arguments and examples that show he is right. DO NOT SIMPLY REPEAT HIS ARGUMENTS!!!! If you think he is wrong, provide counterexamples and counterarguments that show his arguments are bad.
Section III: Your argument:
Do you think relativism is correct? Your answer to this question, which can be stated in one sentence, is the conclusion to your argument.
But your conclusion also needs support (premises)! What are the reasons you accept or reject relativism? Explain thoroughly and consider weaknesses to your own argument.
Here is website link for " Equality for Animals".
As a general guideline, the paper should be double spaced with standard (about 1") margins. Please use a 12pt "Times New Roman" or comparable font.