Philosophical Writing Sexual Assault Accusations and the Ethics of Belief

Assignment: Write a 5 page (double spaced) paper in response to one of the writing prompts in the attached document. Each prompt requires you to take a stance on a particular issue we discussed in the course – this stance should be your main thesis. You must defend your main thesis by giving an argument and considering and responding to objections. Make sure you answer every part of the writing prompt thoroughly and follow the individualized instructions for the topic you have chosen!

Guidelines:
 See the Guide to Philosophical Writing in the “Writing Guides” folder in myCourses for detailed advice about how to write your papers and see the Paper Grading Rubric for the assessment criteria.
 Make sure you answer every part of the prompt thoroughly.
 Title: Put the title of your paper at the top of your first page!
 Introduction: You should have an introductory paragraph wherein you clearly state your main thesis and give a “map” of your paper – see Guide to Philosophical Writing.
 Citing: You may include quotations from the readings (with a citation), but do so sparingly – try to state things in your own words as much as possible! If you are referencing ideas from the readings, but not quoting, you should still include a citation for the reading in which they appear (e.g. “(Author’s Last Name, Page Number)”). For some topics, you may need to do some outside research and you should always cite where you are getting your information from. You may appeal to ideas from lectures, but you should not copy anything directly from the slides – use your own words! You do not need to cite the lectures.
 Works Cited: make sure you have a list of all the materials you cite in your paper at the end. (Use whatever citation format you like.)

Submission instructions:
1. Put your student ID number – not your name – and the paper topic number that you chose to write about in the header of your paper.
2. Save your document as a Word doc or PDF with the title “Your Student ID_Final Paper” and submit it through the myCourses Assignment tool. If you’re submitting your paper in French, please title your document as “Your Student ID_Final Paper_French”.

(1) The She Said, He Said Paradox: What is the paradox that Gardiner thinks arises when thinking about what standards of evidence universities should use in adjudicating rape accusations on campus? What do you think is the best solution to the paradox and why? Defend your answer by considering and responding to an objection.

(2) Testimonial Injustice and #MeToo: (a) Explain Fricker’s view of testimonial injustice and how you think it applies to sexual assault accusations. (b) Do you think Fricker is right that testimonial injustice occurs against accusers only when the hearer has some prejudice against the accuser? (c) And do you think we can commit testimonial injustice against accusers that we have no relationship or contact with whatsoever? Explain your answers to (b) and (c) as thoroughly as you can and defend them by considering and responding to an objection.

Important instructions for topic (2):
• This prompt is asking you to apply and critically engage with Fricker’s account of testimonial injustice. So, your main thesis in this paper should be about whether you are defending Fricker’s account of testimonial injustice or defending an alternative, revised view about testimonial injustice (depending on what your answers to (b) and (c) are). You may not have space to consider an objection to each of your answers to (b) and (c). So, you might want to focus the philosophical dialectic of your paper around one of these questions and devote more space to it than the other question.

(3) Sexual Assault Accusations and the Ethics of Belief: Give an example of a sexual assault accusation, either from the real world, from fiction (e.g., a book, movie, TV show), or one that you make up. What do you think the hearer (the person who hears the accusation) should believe in this case and why? To develop your answer to this question you should answer the following more specific questions: (a) What are the evidential considerations that you think are relevant to whether the hearer (the person who hears the accusation) should believe the accusation in this case? (b) Do you think there are ethical considerations in this case that are relevant to what the hearer should believe too? Defend your answer to (b) by considering and responding to at least one objection.

Important instructions for topic (3):
• We talked about a number of ethical considerations (having to do with testimonial injustice, risks of harm, duties of friendship) that one might think are relevant to what we should believe about sexual assault accusations and you should engage with this material and how it applies to your particular example. If you are arguing (in response to (b)) that there are ethical considerations relevant to what one should believe in this case, you should defend your view by considering and responding to an objection from someone who thinks that only the evidence matters to what we should believe (i.e., an evidentialist). If you are arguing, instead, that only the evidence matters and that there are no ethical considerations that are relevant, you should consider and respond to an objection from someone who thinks there is some ethical consideration that is relevant to what one should believe (i.e., a pragmatist).

(4) Lies and Sexual Consent: If you deceive someone about things like your job, your natural hair color, or your political beliefs in order to get them to have sex with you, does this undermine their ability to give morally valid consent and thereby makes the sex nonconsensual and seriously morally wrong? Defend your answer by giving an argument for your position and considering and responding to at least one objection to your argument.

Important instructions for topic (4):
• You should engage with Dougherty and Liberto’s arguments in your paper in some way. For example, you might explain one of their arguments as your main argument defending your view, or you might develop your own argument, but consider one of their arguments as an objection. You won’t be able to discuss all their ideas, so you’ll need to think about what to focus on. For example, Dougherty gives three different arguments for his claim that deceiving someone into sex makes the sex nonconsensual and you may want to engage with one of them. Likewise, Liberto gives several objections to Dougherty’s argument and you may want to only focus on one of them. Remember that it’s always better to cover less ground, but be really thorough and get deep into the issue, than it is cover more ground superficially.

(5) Moral Status of Animals: (a) Explain what Singer means when he claims that all animals deserve equal moral consideration and the account of moral status that his view relies upon. (b) Do you think there’s a better account of moral status that implies that nonhuman animals don’t have moral status? Explain your answer and defend it.

Important instructions for topic (5):
• To explain and defend your answer to (b), you should engage in some philosophical dialectic. If you are arguing “no” in response to (b), you should explain an alternative account that someone might offer and explain why you think it’s not a good account (or why you think it doesn’t imply that nonhuman animals lack moral status). If you are arguing “yes” in response to (b), you should explain what you think that better account is, consider an objection to that account and respond to it.

(6) Racism & Speciesism: Both Singer and McPherson use analogies between racism and speciesism to argue that consuming animal products is morally wrong. (a) Explain one (or both) of these analogies. (b) Do you think they are right that consuming animal products really is speciesist and thereby morally wrong in a way that is analogous to racism? Explain and defend your answer.

Important instructions for topic (6):
• Part (b) asks you to critically evaluate the analogies that Singer and McPherson are drawing between racism and consuming animal products. So, to defend your answer to (b), you should engage in some philosophical dialectic. If you are defending the analogy, you should explain and respond to one objection that someone might raise to it. And if you’re arguing against the analogy, explain your objection, consider how Singer or McPherson might respond, and explain why that response is not satisfactory. Given the limited space, you may want to focus on just one analogy in part (b) – either Singer’s or McPherson’s.

(7) Ethical Veganism: Why does McPherson think it’s typically wrong to consume animal products? Do you think McPherson’s argument ultimately succeeds and why or why not? Explain and defend your answer.

Important instructions for topic (7):
• To explain and defend your answer to the second question, you should engage in some philosophical dialectic. So, if you’re defending McPherson’s argument, you should consider and respond to an objection that someone might raise to the argument. If you’re arguing against McPherson’s argument, you should explain what you think is the strongest objection to the argument, consider how McPherson might respond to your objection, and explain why that response is unsatisfactory.

(8) Ethical/Conscientious Omnivorism: What is ethical (or conscientious) omnivorism and what is the main challenge that Cuneo thinks ethical omnivores face in defending their view? Do you think there’s a good response to this challenge and why or why not? Explain and defend your answer by considering and responding to an objection.

(9) Create your own paper topic: Create your own paper topic that is relevant to the material that we’ve covered during Theme 2 (#Metoo Movement) or Theme 3 (Ethical Food Movement) of the course. Your paper topic should focus on a specific question relevant to this material about which there is room for philosophical debate, and your paper should develop an argument for a particular answer to that question. In defending your answer, you must also explain and respond to an objection to your main argument.

Important instructions for topic (9):
o If you choose this option, you must propose your paper topic to your TA via email or during office hours by Tuesday, April 5th. Your TA will give you guidance about whether your paper topic is appropriate for this assignment.
o On the top of the first page of your paper, please write the name of the TA who approved your topic: e.g., write “Topic 9 – approved by [TA’s name]”