2.0 phyllis young | Literature homework help

Directions and Assignment Information:
This paper should be a minimum of 1500 words (NOT including reference list/title/header information) and a maximum of 2000 words. Each short critical analysis paper will be graded out of 20 points (see rubric for scoring papers for details on what constitutes an “A” paper).
You are expected to work independently on your paper. You should begin with the case information I have provided as your starting off point (this will help narrow this topic). In addition, I expect that you will utilize AT LEAST two of the articles I have provided, as well as intersect with some of the course material to this point. You do not have to do any external research; however, if you choose to do so, you are limited to TWO other scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources.
Finally, I have provided questions to assist you in getting started with your analysis (after paper structure info). You do not have to focus your analysis on these questions–I have provided them so that those new to philosophy/this topic might have some structured guidance. However, if you choose to do so, explore NO MORE THAN two questions in your paper. Be sure to compare/contrast different ethical theories/perspectives for your analysis.
As always, email ([email protected]) or stop by my office hours with questions.
Suggested paper structure:
I. Introduction (approx. 1 page or less–250 words) A. State and explain the purpose of the paper
1. Define any technical terms in the paper topic/questionB. State and explain the philosophical problem/question(s) you will explore/thesis C. State what your conclusion will be
II. Compare and contrast ethical theories as they relate to this questionA. Identify common themes (for example, hedonism and utilitarianism have overlapping aims)
1. Point out relevant stylistic, historical, theoretical differences2. Point out where two different words/terms actually mean the same thing and where
two of the same words have different meaningsB. Compare and contrast how the theories might interpret the question under consideration
1. Point out how conclusions differ and how they are the same III. Pick your position and defend it
A. State which position you agree with1. Remind the reader of the main idea behind the position
B. Defend this position1. Explain why you have chosen this position
IV. Criticize the position you have chosen (from the perspective of the other position) A. Remind the reader of the other positionB. Assume the persona of your opponent and criticize your own defense
V. Re-defend your original position in light of the new criticism VI. Conclusion (approx. 1 paragraph–100 words)
A. Briefly restate the purpose of the paperB. Briefly restate the main philosophical points C. Briefly restate your positionD. Wrap up any loose end