They should be 8-12 pages long. They will be due sometime during finals week. This is to be an argumentative or analytical paper. Mere exposition will not earn a very good grade on it.

Here are some possible topics. They are not the only possibilities; I have probably mentioned possible topics in class that do not appear here, and I’m sure I will think of some others as we go. In addition, you are welcome to develop your own topic, so long as it relates to some of the class material. (If you do this, please run the topic by me so I can make sure you can write a suitable paper about it.) 

In any case, keep in mind that the paper should be more than mere exposition. Unless you are working with extremely complicated texts that require a lot of argued-for interpretation, you should probably not spend much more than a third of the paper telling me what someone else thinks. This means that you can assume that the reader is somewhat familiar with the basics of the theories and arguments you will discuss. Typically, you will want to spend about a page giving the broad outlines of the theory or argument you are going to discuss, then a more detailed emphasis on the details that will be relevant to your remarks. Then you should launch into your own argument or analysis, which should occupy the bulk of the paper.

In general, you may explore and develop further any line of thought that was mentioned in class, so long as you go beyond what we said in class and what can be found in the readings for the class. With that in mind, there should be dozens of topics available. Here are some that leap readily to my mind. In addition to these, you might consider developing one of your answers to the "original thought" part of one of your exam essays into a term paper. (If you got a "5" on any of them, then that was a sign that I thought that you were on to something important, promising, and fairly original.)

Some possible topics (in addition, most of the "original thought" questions on the mid-term would also be viable topics, and I have probably mentioned topics in class that are not on this list).

1. Finish reading Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation (it’s an easy and enjoyable read). After the briefest of summaries of the main theory (think of yourself as refreshing my memory rather than explaining the book to me), explore and evaluate the potential of Axelrod’s work for the project of providing a justification of morality in terms of self-interest. In part, you should ask yourself what sort of morality (if any) could be justified in this way, and how it might differ from the commonsense morality most of us hold. You might also want to develop a more detailed answer to the exam question on whether and how Axelrod’s work might help to solve the compliance problem.

2. Parfit claims that considerations of personal identity make utilitarianism "more plausible." Williams thinks that considerations about projects makes utilitarianism "unreasonable." Why the hedging? Why not "true" and "false"? Could considerations of personal identity or the nature of persons ever prove that an ethical theory is true or false? If so, what would such an argument have to show?

3. Suppose you wanted to write a dissertation refuting Kagan’s book. What do you think the most promising line of attack would be, and why? Depending on your answer, you may suggest and complete a self-contained critique, or you may just point out what you think (and you’ll need to support your opinion here) is the biggest weakness of Kagan’s position.

4. As above, but suppose you wanted to defend Kagan from some apparently promising line of attack.

5. Look at the rest of Hare’s theory, in particular the part where he attempts to show that morality consists of universal prescriptions without appealing to moral intuitions. Is he successful? Why or why not?

6. I kept saying that I did not think Gewirth succeeded in showing that it is a logical error to violate the Principle of Generic Consistency. Was I correct? Why or why not? (See me for additional readings on Gewirth if you choose this topic.)

7. Both Gewirth/Kant and Hare take universalization to lie at the heart of morality. Yet they end up with very different moral theories. Why? Where is the crucial step at which they part company? Who is on the right track, and why?

8. Hare thinks that impartial universalization leads to utilitarianism. Rawls thinks it leads to liberal deontology. Who is right, and why? (Only those who already have a decent understanding of Rawls should attempt this project.)

9. Parfit suggests that his theory of PID is close to what many Buddhists believe. Is he right? If so, then should Buddhists be utilitarians? Do Buddhists tend to hold utilitarian moral theories? If so, then do they hold such views for reasons akin to those that Parfit offers? If not, then why not? You should only attempt this project if you are thoroughly familiar with Buddhist thought. Remember that you want to make sure to engage with the arguments that are meant to link utilitarianism to a certain way of looking at the self and not just do a book report on Buddhism.

10. Evaluate Bernard Williams’s criticisms of Parfit. Do they succeed? Why or why not?

11. Earlier, we discussed various positions in meta-ethics. Should the stand one takes on the debate between cognitivism and non-cognitivism and/or the debate between subjectivism and objectivism affect one’s attitude toward intuitionism? If so, how? If not, why not? Does intuitionism "fit" better with one or the other of these meta-ethical views?

12. Early on, Scheffler notes the difference between a genuine ACP and a mere "consequentialist dispensation" to pay more attention to your own interests. He clearly thinks that such dispensations do not do sufficient justice to our integrity. Is he right about this? Why or why not?

13.  Many feminist philosophers have criticized the impartiality and "coldness" of both Kant and utilitarianism.  Their criticisms are a bit like those of Williams, but the emphasis is rather different.  If you are up for a bit of extra reading, talk to me about reading up on some of this literature.  There are a number of possible paper topics connected with it.  One straightforward topic would just be to see how close the feminist arguments are to Williams's argument, and perhaps to see whose version is more convincing.