Second 5-7 page paper
PHIL 10100
Due: in discussion sections, Friday, April 24
__________________________________________________________________________________
Below are four topics for your second paper. You are welcome to come up with your own topic, though
you must get the written approval of your TA by email first. If you do this, the question that your TA
approves should be on the first page of your essay. The papers should be at most 5-7 pages in length,
double-spaced and with reasonable margins and font.
A late penalty of 3 points per day, including weekends, will be assessed for any papers which are
handed in late.
Plagiarism is a serious and growing problem at Notre Dame and other universities. It is your
responsibility to acquaint yourselves with the Universityʼs honor code, as well as with the philosophy
departmentʼs guidelines regarding plagiarism. Both are linked from the course web site.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. Say whether you think compatibilism or incompatibilism about free will and determinism is more
plausible, and why. If you think that compatibilism is more plausible, explain how you think that a
compatibilist should respond to van Inwagenʼs consequence argument. If you think that
incompatibilism is more plausible, say how you think an incompatibilist should rexplain the
examples of Jane (from van Inwagen) and Jones & Black (from Frankfurt).
2. Say which view of personla identity you think is correct, and why. Defend your view by explaining
and responding to two or more of what you take to be the strongest objections to your view.
3. Briefly explain (in about 2 pages) McTaggartʼs argument for the unreality of time. What is the best
response to this argument? Does the argument show us anything about the nature of time?
4. Explain Singerʼs argument concerning our obligations to the poor. What is the intended conclusion
of the argument? Is the argument convincing? Consider what you take to be the strongest
objections to the argument, and say whether you think that Singer can give satisfactory replies to
these objections.
5. Defend moral relativism against the criticisms discussed in class, and give what you think is the
strongest defense of moral relativism. Explain exactly how, in your view, a moral relativist should
understand ordinary claims about the rightness and wrongness of actions.
