1.Explain, reconstruct, and critically examine Alistair Norcross’ argument for ethical treatment of animals. Make sure you explain Norcross’ use of analogy in comprehensive detail, as well as providing the argument form (reconstruction). Also, be sure to argue either that Norcross’ argument is sound/cogent or unsound/uncogent. Make sure you provide plenty of examples to illustrate your points as well as providing evidence for your argument.
2. Explain, reconstruct, and critically examine Jan Narveson’s rejection of according animals rights and the consequent view that “… I think we can eat meat and perform animal experimentation in good conscience.” How does Narveson reach this view? Minimally, you need to explain why Narveson thinks that animals’ lack of sophisticated language skills is, according to him, relevant in not bestowing animals with moral consideration. Also, why does Narveson think that the fact that animals are not agents but “patients” is relevant for their non-moral status. After this, present a couple of objections Narveson poses to his own position and evaluate his responses to such objections. Do you think that Narveson successfully rebuts the objections or not? Provide an argument for your view.
3. Explain, reconstruct, and evaluate Don Marquis’ argument against abortion. At a minimum, you should consider why Marquis considers the current abortion debate bankrupt and what he regards as a better approach. You should also explain Marquis’ argument in detail and what he sees are the logical implications of his argument. After this, consider some objections to Marquis’s account and how he might respond to such objections (evaluation). Is Marquis successful in responding to the objections or not? As always, you should provide plenty of examples to illustrate your claims throughout the paper, and offer forceful evidence for your thesis.
4. Explain, reconstruct, and evaluate Thomson’s argument for pro-choice. At a minimum, you should consider the starting point of Thomson’s argument in her characterization of the anti-abortion stance regarding the personhood status of the fetus. Then proceed to discuss, in detail, the unconscious violinist example and Thomson’s conclusion regarding the example. Next, consider some objections to Thomson presents to her own argument and how she responds to those objections by constructing different analogies. Is Thomson successful in responding to the objections or not (evaluation)? In the end, what position is Thomson actually defending regarding abortion? As always, you should provide plenty of examples to illustrate your claims throughout the paper, and offer forceful evidence for your thesis.
