Ethics: The Frivolity of Evil
Reflection Paper
You will write a 1000-1500 word response to your chosen paper topic from the list below. See the Course Calendar for due date. See the course calendar for the exact date and time.
YOU WILL ATTACH A FILE OF YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SUBMISSION BOX. You may also copy and paste your paper if you wish.
This assignment is worth 250 points, or 25% of your final grade.
Learning Objectives:
Students will demonstrate their ability to construct arguments about issues of both personal and universal significance. Their writing should demonstrate that they can construct cogent, concise, and logically coherent arguments.
Assessment:
Students should demonstrate that they can distinguish the relevant points that form a logically coherent argument. They should also be able to construct criticisms which effectively undermine, through the use of appropriate counter-examples, some premise of that argument.
Your assignment is to select any ONE of the following four articles found in the last chapter of our textbook, Competing Visions:
Frivolity of Evil
How--and How Not--to Love Mankind
Ibsen and His Discontents
What is Poverty?
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A RESEARCH PAPER, SO DO NOT USE ANY OUTSIDE SOURCES OTHER THAN THE DALRYMPLE ARTICLE AND YOUR TEXTBOOK, WHICH YOU WILL CITE USING MLA FORMAT.This assignment is designed to test your ability (after several weeks of reading difficult primary sources in philosophy) to comprehend, explain, analyze, and evaluate a philosophic essay of college-level difficulty. This is all about YOU wrestling with a difficult text and ascertaining its meaning in addition to articulating and defending your own position on the issues discussed in your chosen Dalrymple article. It is for this reason that the use of any sources other than your Dalrymple article and our textbook will result in an automatic 50 point deduction. The use of outside sources without proper attribution constitutes plagiarism and will earn you a ZERO for this assignment with no chance to make it up.
FOR THE ARTICLE YOU CHOOSE TO WRITE ON, you will type a 1000-1500 word response in which you address EACH of the following points IN YOUR OWN WORDS: 1) What is the author's main argument? 2) How does he support his main argument (evidence, ancillary arguments, etc.)? 3) Do you agree or disagree with him? 4) Why or why not? 5) Apply the insights of at least two of the readings we have studied in this course (in chapters 1-10) to your analysis. Make sure to explain how the philosophers' insights are relevant to the topic you are discussing.
A WORD OF WARNING: These articles are rather long and complex. The author likes to make extensive use of his rather copious vocabulary, so I strongly urge you to have dictionary.com handy as you work your way through your chosen article. The purpose of this essay assignment is for you to demonstrate your ability to discuss, analyze, and evaluate complex philosophic arguments. I am confident that the reading assignments, tests, and discussion boards will have prepared you for this final, and no doubt challenging, essay assignment.
Note: I only allow one attempt on this assignment. Students who do not fully address all of the components of the assignment as stated in the instructions as well as the grading rubric below will have to be content with the grade they earned.
Please use MLA format.
Your paper will be graded according to the following rubric:
Grading Rubric:
The following standards are numbered in order of importance for grading.
1.Essay demonstrates an understanding of the material: The student has correctly grasped a philosophical problem or question, has explained it accurately, and on the basis of a substantially correct interpretation of any texts involved. Key terms are used correctly. The essay shows evidence of the student's independent thought, and is written in his or her distinctive voice. Short (one sentence) quotations are used, when appropriate, to support the writer's analysis, and an explanation is offered for each quotation. No more than 10% of paper is made up of direct quotes. Block quotations will result in a severe point deduction.
75 points
2.Essay has clear and coherent argument: There is a clearly stated thesis, and support for this thesis in the body of the paper. Each paragraph contributes to this argument, and follows logically from the paragraph before it. The argument presented is persuasive. The insights of two other philosophers are incorporated into the analysis.
75 points
3.Essay fulfills assigned task: The essay addresses the entire assigned question or topic, elaborating on important ideas in satisfactory depth, but without bringing in anything extraneous or irrelevant. The introduction of the essay focuses and provides clarity for the paper. Important terms are clearly and accurately defined. Each paragraph conveys a coherent, organized thought. Short (one sentence) quotations are occasionally used, when appropriate, to support the writer's analysis, and an explanation is offered for each quotation. No block quotations.
40 points
4.Essay obeys standards for good persuasive writing: the writer shows that he or she is comfortable using philosophical language, and the prose is clear, not awkward. The structure of the sentences reflects the relationships between/among the ideas discussed.
40 points
5.Essay is technically correct: The essay has been carefully and thoughtfully proofread. The argument is written in complete sentences, with punctuation that does not mislead the reader. There are no mistakes in spelling, grammar, word choice, and punctuation.
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Ethics: The Frivolity of Evil
Evil has become rampant in society just as much as people have become unhappy. In his article “The Frivolity of Evil,” Theodore Dalrymple examines evil and how it has flourished in modern society through his personal experience lens. His experience dealing with patients, both as victims or perpetrators of evil, spans over 14 years and has led him to the conclusion that evil has everything to do with individual choices. By focusing on low-level evil as a consequence of free will, he argues that people freely choose to be evil and commit acts of violence against their fellow man. In a modern, democratic country, citizens’ ability to choose is unhindered, yet, of all the available choices at their disposal, they choose paths that result in unhappiness and evil. The author further posits that the welfare systems, ideologies, and culture have allowed evil to thrive. As this paper will show, he supports his argument using examples of some of the patients he has dealt with in the course of his practice. Although his argument assigns moral responsibility to individuals, I disagree with him because he overlooks the role of internal and external factors that are beyond an individual’s control and how such factors impede free will, resulting in poor decision-making and immorality.
The author seems to indicate that both perpetrators and victims of evil find themselves in such situations mostly because of the choices they make (p.158). He gives an example of a woman who has chosen to be in a relationship with one evil man after the other. She has had children with each of these men, yet she knew that they were not good partners or fathers. The author argues that even though this woman was a victim, first of her mom and then of these men, “she had knowingly borne children of men whom no good could be expected” (158). It is not that she did not know these men were evil and cause harm to her and her children. She knew but she ignored the consequences; she chose to be with them, even at the expense of her happiness and that of her children. Even though these men were not causing pain to the masses, they each contributed a little evil in the world, and Dalrymple argues that such small evil contributes to greater, overall evil in the world.
He indicates that as a result of poor choices, people have failed to take responsibility and accountability for their unhappiness. Rather than acknowledging how their choices inhibit any chance of happiness, human beings are quick to self-diagnose as depressed people, yet they are simply unhappy with their life. By doing so, they are assigning the responsibility of their happiness to their doctors. Dalrymple opines that “Everyone has a right to health; depression is unhealthy; therefore everyone has a right to be happy” (p.157). Therefore, if depression is unhealthy, doctors should eliminate it and make these individuals healthy. However, the author is against this approach and he supports his argument by indicating that the silver lining in his 14 years of experience is that he realized that most people realize that their choices influence their happiness or, in this case, lack of. Most of his patients admit ...