Ethical Competency Writing Assignment Description PHI 108 Spring 2019 Dr. David M. DiQuattro March 5, 2019 1 Basic Assignment Description For your ethical competency writing assignment, you will write analyze a disagreement between two authors/viewpoints that we discussed this semester. I am calling the assignment a critical disagreement analysis. Below I will provide a number of examples of disagreements between the authors we discuss this semester. Your paper will have the following components 1. Hone the disagreement • I want you to start by taking my general statement of disagreement and providing your own clear specifics that focus on particular claims or passages. Here you are taking my starting point, but providing your own framing of the disagreement that will provide focus for your paper. • You will hone your statement of the disagreement in a way that sets things up for the next parts of the paper. • For example: – In number 2 below, you will identify a specific critique of Rawls from either Kittay or Noddings. You need to explain where the disagreement is and set the stage for a fruitful dialogue to follow in the paper. • This part of the paper should be focused. You should discuss the two views in a way that sets the stage for your objection and response. • In the opening part of the paper you need to preview what is ahead - you may only write this part late in the writing process, but you need to provide a clear preview of where the rest of the paper goes. 2. Provide the best objection from one point of view to another • I want you to do more than just state the two sides of the issue in this paper. I want you to bring the authors into dialogue. You will do this by articulating an objection to one position from the point of view of the other, then responding to the objection. – You want your objection to be more than just restating a point where the authors diagree. Here’s what I mean by just restating, as an example: 1 Kant believes that there are absolute rules that should be followed without regard to conse- quences. The strongest utilitarian objection to this is that Kant disregards the importance of how an action affects overall happiness. – The above is an example of what not to do. That way of stating things won’t get you far because it is just a re-stating of a key difference between Kant and utilitarianism. • You should look for an objection that raises a new question for the other point of view, or points out an unforeseen implication of the view. In some way it should move discussion forward. I am not asking you to discover something that has never been said about these issues. I just want you to deepen your understanding of the two views by raising a serious objection to one position, then responding to it. – In some way the objection should force you to think in new ways about the position objected to. • In this section you should explain as clearly as you can how the objection presents a proble.

1. Ethical Competency Writing Assignment Description
PHI 108 Spring 2019
Dr. David M. DiQuattro
March 5, 2019
1 Basic Assignment Description
For your ethical competency writing assignment, you will write
analyze a disagreement between two authors/viewpoints
that we discussed this semester. I am calling the assignment a
critical disagreement analysis. Below I will
provide a number of examples of disagreements between the
authors we discuss this semester. Your
paper will have the following components
1. Hone the disagreement
• I want you to start by taking my general statement of
disagreement and providing your own clear specifics
that focus on particular claims or passages. Here you are taking
my starting point, but providing your
own framing of the disagreement that will provide focus for
your paper.
• You will hone your statement of the disagreement in a way
that sets things up for the next parts of the
paper.
• For example:
– In number 2 below, you will identify a specific critique of

2. Rawls from either Kittay or Noddings.
You need to explain where the disagreement is and set the stage
for a fruitful dialogue to follow in
the paper.
• This part of the paper should be focused. You should discuss
the two views in a way that sets the stage
for your objection and response.
• In the opening part of the paper you need to preview what is
ahead - you may only write this part late
in the writing process, but you need to provide a clear preview
of where the rest of the paper goes.
2. Provide the best objection from one point of view to another
• I want you to do more than just state the two sides of the issue
in this paper. I want you to bring the
authors into dialogue. You will do this by articulating an
objection to one position from the point of
view of the other, then responding to the objection.
– You want your objection to be more than just restating a point
where the authors diagree. Here’s
what I mean by just restating, as an example:
1
Kant believes that there are absolute rules that should be
followed without regard to conse-
quences. The strongest utilitarian objection to this is that Kant
disregards the importance
of how an action affects overall happiness.

3. – The above is an example of what not to do. That way of
stating things won’t get you far because
it is just a re-stating of a key difference between Kant and
utilitarianism.
• You should look for an objection that raises a new question
for the other point of view, or points out
an unforeseen implication of the view. In some way it should
move discussion forward. I am not
asking you to discover something that has never been said about
these issues. I just want
you to deepen your understanding of the two views by raising a
serious objection to one
position, then responding to it.
– In some way the objection should force you to think in new
ways about the position objected to.
• In this section you should explain as clearly as you can how
the objection presents a problem for the
opposing view, and why the opposing view needs to take the
objection seriously.
3. Provide the best response to the objection
• See rubric below for more criteria
• Make sure the response takes the objection “seriously” - it
should demonstrate understanding of why it
is a problem. It should allow deeper thinking about the
implications of the view objected to, and lead
to a creative response that is true to this viewpoint, but
addresses the concerns of the objection.
Key Pointers

4. • You want the dialogue to raise questions worth taking
seriously - both for you and for the positions involved.
• So avoid objections you think are easy to answer.
• Also avoid making it too easy to refute a position. The paper
won’t achieve depth if you think a position is
obviously wrong, dumb, misguided and so you can easily raise
an irrefutable objection.
2 Examples of disagreements
1. Aristotle disagrees with the Stoics on whether virtue is
sufficient for happiness. Aristotle disagrees with the
idea, and Stoicism is really based on that core idea. So raise an
objection to Aristotle’s position that external
goods are needed for eudaimonia and respond on Aristotle’s
behalf. Or raise an objection to the Stoic way
of articulating how virtue is sufficient for happiness. You can
cast doubt on any of the ways Stoics connect
happiness, apatheia about what is outside our control, desire,
judgment, etc.
• It might help to focus on a more specific disagreement
between Aristotle and the Stoics, like the nature
of friendship and human relationships from their differing
points of view.
2
2. Nel Noddings and Eva Kittay raise objections to how
political liberalism/contract theory (i.e., Rawls) thinks
of agency, identity and our responsibilities toward others.

5. Identify and state a strong objection they raise
to Rawls and provide a response on behalf of Rawls. Noddings
and Kittay share some of the concerns of
political liberalism and contract theory, so try to identify ways
that they try to be “truer” to the basic values
of a free, tolerant society, where each person has agency and the
power of self-governance.
3. Rawls thinks that we can think about justice and construct a
just social order without settling questions
about the good life. Plato seems to disagree in the Gorgias.
Articulate a point of disagreement, raise an
objection from one position to the other, and provide a response
4. Nietzsche provides a very general “diagnosis” of the other
moral thinking we’ve encountered this semester.
Nietzsche’s notion that our moral judgments are rooted in
“resentment” can be applied to Plato’s notion
of justice and happiness, Aristotelian and especially Stoic
notions of the virtues and happiness; it can be
applied to Kant’s notion of universal duty or to the concept of
utility and happiness in utilitarianism. Pick
one of these views and try to articulate Nietzsche’s critique of
how the views’ moral concepts are life-denying.
Articulate a response that takes the critique seriously. (There
are certain affinities between what Nietzsche
does and Callicles’ “natural history of justice”).
5. Nel Noddings and Eva Kittay provide a standpoint that seems
at odds with utilitarianism. Their focus on the
demands of care for this individual in all their vulnerability
seems to entail disagreement with the exclusive
utilitarian concern for overall happiness. Articulate a critique of
utilitarianism from these points of view
and formulate a utilitarian response that takes the concerns
seriously - i.e., try to see how utilitarianism

6. might consider specific claims of care and vulnerability (rather
than just dismissing those concerns in favor
of promoting overall utility).
• This topic invites you to consider whether utilitarianism has
questionable implications about human
vulnerability and handicap and what flourishing human
relationships in light of such vulnerability look
like.
6. Martin Luther King, Jr. seems to draw from Platonic-inspired
ideas about justice (as developed in the
“natural law” tradition) and his views of justice and equality
also have some affinity with Rawls’ political
liberalism. Articulate a shortcoming King might find in one of
these accounts of justice, and articulate a
reply that takes King’s concerns seriously.
7. Utilitarian thinks that our specific duties are rooted in and
justified the one duty to maximize happiness (or
act in the way that most tends to maxmize happiness). Kant
certainly disagrees with utilitarianism on the
nature and “source” of our duties. So also, I would argue, do
Plato and Aristotle. Raise an objection to
utilitarianism from one of these points of view, or vice-versa;
provide a reply.
8. Alasdair MacIntyre’s concept of justice is very much at odds
with Rawls and contract theory. Articulate an
objection from one of these writers to the other, and articulate a
response. [I will make available chapter 17
of After Virtue for those interested in this topic].
3

7. 9. Kant is skeptical about connecting human duty to our desire
to be happy. This puts his view at odds with
Aristotle (and the other Greek thinkers we read). Articulate on
objection from one side or the other dealing
with this issue, and formulate a response.
10. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic seems to be at odds with
utilitarianism. Articulate a problem Leopold would have
with utilitarianism, and articulate a utilitarian reply that takes
Leopold’s concern seriously.
3 Comments on Criteria and Evaluation
The college-wide ethical competency criteria look for your
ability to identify the ethical dimensions of an issue,
articulate and identify different moral theories/views regarding
the issue and defend a position while understanding
objections to it. I have tried to tailor the assignment to meet
these criteria, and my rubric reflects these criteria,
as well as the specifics of this assignment
Grading rubric
General
Category
Criterion Points
Honing the
Disagreement
Clarity and focus in defining disagreement 10
Understanding of texts and philosophers discussed 10
Clarity of preview of rest of paper 5

8. Statement of
objection
Clarity of objection and depth of understanding 15
Cogency: does it bring the views into real dialogue? 10
Arguability: the objection raises a real problem and
neither view is dismissed as obviously wrong
5
Formulation of
Response
Achievement of dialogue: the response takes the issues
in objection seriously
5
Clarity and depth of response 20
Arguability: again, neither view is dismissed nor “let off
the hook” too easily
5
Miscellaneous
Overall Clarity of Organization 5
Quality of writing/communication 5
General Style, formatting and polish of the paper 5
4 Stages of the assignment
• Prior to submitting the final assignment, which is due in our
final exam slot, you will submit a paper
precis/summary. In thumbnail fashion you should tell me what

9. your topic is, and give me a summary of the
different components of the paper:
– You should summarize how you plan to focus the
disagreement
4
– You should do what you can to offer summaries of the
objection you plan to raise and the basics of the
response.
– This assignment does not need paragraph transitions, etc. I
want you to summarize where the paper is
going as directly as possible.
• This assignment is due at midnight on April 11.
5