1) a sustained analysis of a central argument,
2) a shorter analysis of a rival argument, and
3) your own reasoned opinion on the matter.
Here are the requirements:
•Did the author show a general understanding of the issue at hand?
•Did the author mention two possible views on this issue?
•Did the author take a clear position?
•Was it clear why the author put the paragraphs in the particular order s/he did?
•Was there a logical relationship between the paragraphs?
•Did the author explain his/her transition between ideas?
•Was there a clear conclusion to the essay that wrapped up the paper and did not introduce any news ideas?
Analysis of Central Argument
•Did the author use quotes to explain the central argument?
•Did the author explain the philosophical arguments that were given in support of that position?
•Did it seem like the author genuinely understood the arguments?
Consideration of Possible Objection
•Did the author develop the criticism that s/he mentioned in the first paragraph?
Defense of Thesis
•Was it clear what position the author took?
•Did the author support her/his position with reasons?
•Was the argument convincing?
•Was the word count included, and between 1500-1650 words?
•Were there unnecessary words, sentences, or paragraphs?
•Were there spelling errors? Grammar mistakes?
•Were there awkward or confusing words/phrases?
•Was there a works cited page? Did the author cite each quote?
•Does the author use language effectively?
•Did the student promptly deliver two thorough and thoughtful peer evaluations?
•Did the student’s reflection paper demonstrate thoughtful and meaningful improvement by using peer reviews, the meeting with me, and her/his own self-reflection?
•Was the student prompt with the other due dates?
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.Introduction
John Harris’ The Survival Lottery is ostensibly concerned with putting forward a starkly utilitarian case for the priority of the continued lives of multiple terminally ill people over that of any single individual. The mechanism by which this priority would be instituted is a random lottery, where a healthy individual is selected to be killed in order for his organs to be donated to two or more terminal patients. In the brief discussion which follows, I first present Harris’ thought experiment and then a schematized version of what I take to be the essentially utilitarian component of his argument. I then mount an attack on the argument, under the thesis that utilitarianism may not be up to the task Harris needs of it in order for the theoretical specifications of the Survival Lottery to work. I round out the paper with a brief presentation of Singer’s conclusive critique in terms of moral hazard.
Rehearsal and Reconstruction
Harris proposes the following thought experiment. A doctor—and, by extension, society—has two terminal patients, Y and Z. All medical interventions have failed, and, unfortunately for the two patients, no potential organ donors have died so that they could receive the heart and lungs each needs, respectively. Their doctor has determined there is nothing...