Get personal help with your studies from any of the 45,000 experienced experts on Studybay

  • No intermediaries
  • No plagiarism
  • Any Subject
  • Always on time

Here’s an example of project completed by our experts:

Writers choice (Example)

Document Preview:

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Number Date All Animals are Equal by Peter Singer Introduction In his article All Animals are Equal Peter Singer claims that animals should be given the same esteem and reverence like humans. The overall conclusion from the paper is the claim that all animals whether human or non-human are equal. Towards validating his claims Singer argues towards speciesism. He describes speciesism as a “prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer). He makes three main arguments towards speciesism. First Singer argues that equality is based on equal consideration of all animal species. Second he argues that equality is not a factual idea but rather a moral one. Finally Singer claims that the capacity of suffering is a prerequisite for moral rights. He then concludes that without speciesism inequality different species of animals including gender and race. Based on such claims every group must enjoy rights and interests to the extent that they do not infringe other species rights or result into suffering of a particular group. However as argued herein Singer’s argument for speciesism over sexism and racism is very shallow and does not pass the moral threshold of respecting and revering all species. Equality is a prescription of how we should treat other animals not a factual concept. Therefore it is essential that we understand the extent of the damage imposed on other animals before we enjoy particular interests. The arguments can be made stronger by clearly acknowledging that speciesism is wrong just like sexism and racism. Withal it is right to treat and respect All Animals as Equal. Works Cited Singer Peter. “All Animals Are Equal.” Philosophic Exchange vol. 5 no. 1 1974 p. 6. [...]

Order Description:

Papers may be on any author or topic covered in class and are to be turned in as hardcopies in class on the day that they are due. They must be typed, 3 – 5 pages doubled-spaced with 12 point Times New Roman Font and standard margins. In your papers you are expected: (1) to demonstrate an understanding of the authors’ arguments, theoretical frameworks, or concepts you have chosen and (2) to give arguments of your own in response to/regarding them. Some ways to fulfill requirement (2): (a) You may pick an argument that one of the authors has given for a particular position or theoretical commitments and critically analyze it, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. You may then suggest ways to strengthen the argument or to modify their theoretical commitments to make the theory more coherent. Or, alternatively, if you think the author’s argument has too many problems, or that their theory has too many holes, you can argue that these problems are insurmountable, and therefore, that the author’s argument or theory ought to be rejected. (b) You may argue that one author’s arguments are more convincing than another author’s arguments regarding a particular point or moral position. Likewise, you may argue that one theoretical framework for understanding our moral responsibilities or a particular ethical question is stronger or in some way superior to another. (c) You may argue for ways to expand an author’s account to new moral questions. It is best to do this only if you can see clearly how the expansion helps to strengthen the theory or to make it more complete, i.e., more able to give us practical guidance in answering important ethical questions. If you take this route, be careful to explain why you think that the authors’ account would apply to these questions in the way that you are suggesting – that is, you should be careful to argue that they apply in the way that you suggest. (d) You may analyze an important ethical concept – the concept of goodness, for instance, drawing on the authors we have covered for whom this concept is important. Then argue for or against the usefulness or reasonableness of the concept as one or more of the authors understands it. (e) You may develop your own arguments for a particular point or position or lay out your own theoretical or conceptual framework and then argue that your arguments or framework is superior to authors’ arguments or framework. You may draw from other authors in doing this, but you must acknowledge them when you do, and your arguments or framework must be different enough from those of other authors that it constitutes a new contribution to the ethical discourse. A Word of Caution: It is ok to write a paper that includes some comparison of some of the authors covered, particularly if you are doing this as a part of an argument that one of the authors is giving better arguments or answering important philosophical questions better than the other. But do not write a compare and contrast paper in which all you are doing is comparing and contrasting the authors’ arguments or theories, saying what one author says and then the other, with no critical input of your own. Comparing and contrasting elements of authors’ works, when this is all that you do, only shows that you understand the authors’ arguments, not that you are developing your own arguments or contributions to the questions the authors are trying to answer. It therefore only helps to satisfy requirement (1) for papers. Your paper must still include arguments of your own (requirement 2). There are other ways to write a philosophy paper besides those that I have outlined above. But these are the most common. If you have any questions about whether what you want to write about is appropriate or is likely to work, please do not hesitate to talk with me about it. Use First Person When Laying Out Your Own Arguments: In many of the humanities – literature, for instance – you are expected to write in the third person. This is not the case in philosophy. Philosophers routinely write papers introducing their own arguments in the first person. So, for instance, you might introduce your own argument in the following way: “As we have seen, Aristotle argues that virtue exists on a mean between excess and defect of character. I argue, however, that virtues actually lie on one if two poles, with moderation being neither vicious nor virtuous.” Writing in the first person leaves no confusion as to who is arguing for what, that is, it makes clear where your argument begins and the authors’ arguments end. I ask that you try to make clear, as you write, where your own arguments begin and where the authors’ arguments end.

Subject Area: Philosophy

Document Type: Reports

This project has already been completed by one of the Studybay experts. The client rated this project:

Project's rating is 5/5

Price $35

Words 1100

Pages 4

Completed in 21 days

Expert donngonyo

Client Review

Great job, I didnt have to coach him through the assignment like some writers and he completed it on time.

Positive
02.09.2018

Similar projects

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

Assessing moral values

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

The Self

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

Hobbes & Locke

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

Casestudy Essay

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

Love and Other Drugs

Subject of the project is Philosophy   Type of the project is Reports

Extra Credit Paper

Need Help With a Project on This or Another Topic?

Cooperate with seasoned experts directly — create your project now and start getting help in 2 minutes.

Studybay top experts

Reviews from Studybay Community

  • Our Studybay rating is:
    4.9
  • Our ReviewCentre rating is:
    4.8
  • Our SiteJabber rating is:
    4.5