Submit the assignment as a Word doc.
You paper should be 8-10 pages in length: not fewer than 8, not more than 10. (This does not include the cover page that has your name or group members’ names, the class name and semester, and a reference page in MLA format.)
As you cite passages from the dialogue, you must provide line numbers from the text itself to identify which passage you are citing.
Do not quote more than a line or two. If you need to refer to more than a line or two, paraphrase the text.
The extra point for going to the Writing Center does apply to the final exam. If you go more than once, I’ll give just one point (and not two) for visiting the Writing Center.
You should NOT USE ANY EXTERNAL SOURCES APART FROM THE ONES MENTIONED HERE. IF YOU DO, THE EXAM WILL EARN AN F.
In this eight to ten page paper you and your group (or you if working solo) will outline and assess at least three distinct and different arguments that Socrates gives in his own defense in The Apology as he argues he is not guilty and that he does not deserve the death penalty. (Your group will decide if it will provide one argument about the conviction and two about the defense, etc.)
There are three main parts of the exam paper:
Decide what your group thinks about the conviction and sentence. That is, do y’all think both were wrong, both were right, or perhaps one was wrong and the other right? Your group should be summarizing three arguments Socrates makes.
When outlining the arguments, your group should draw on strong arguments Socrates makes and not weak ones.
As part of those arguments you should somewhere, somehow draw on at least three moral theories and strategies from three different articles from our course to assess the arguments that Socrates provides. (I repeat this point in 2 below.) So, for example, you’ll want to draw on at least three theories from list list of articles: Mill’s Utilitarianism (or Singer on animals if you can make that work), Mill’s On Liberty (or the article about adult pot use if you can make that work), Kantian moral theory (and of the readings or articles if you can make that work), and virtue theory (Aristotle or Neulieb).
In the first part of your exam you might decide, for example, Socrates was guilty and deserved to die. You might summarize two arguments he offers to defend his innocence and one he offers to suggest punishments other than death.
You must defend and/or criticize what Socrates argued. That is, here in part two you need to make an argument of your own that either defends or criticizes each of the three points from the first part of your exam.
As part of your assessment you should somewhere, somehow draw on at least three moral theories and strategies from three different articles from our course to assess the arguments that Socrates provides.
For example, here in part two you might criticize Socrates’s first argument using virtue theory. Here in part two you might turn to Utilitarianism to defend the third argument Socrates makes. If you did this then you will have satisfied the exam requirements that you use at least three moral theories.
Consider one objection to each of your views. That is, you must make an objection to each of your arguments in part two. However, please do not make the objection an easy one to knock over because that is really what makes the straw person fallacy a problem.
As you argue, you must use each theory consistently and coherently. That is, you should not argue in a way that each moral theorist or strategist himself or herself does not defend.
You must also consider obvious objections to your own view. That is, after each of your arguments about Socrates you must also give a strong objection (e.g. something your best friend might say that points out a main problem for your view).
Do not make the objection an easy one to knock over because that is really what makes the straw person fallacy a problem.
In short, you argue, you must use each theory consistently and coherently. (That is, you should not argue in a way that each moral theorist or strategist himself or herself does not defend.) You must also consider obvious objections to your own view. That is, after each of your arguments about Socrates you must also give a strong objection (e.g. something your best friend might say that points out a main problem for your view). However, please do not make the objection an easy one to knock over because that is really what makes the straw person fallacy a problem.
The final exam might be an essay or even a dialogue between you and your group members and the main ethical theorists we have read. (The dialogue should be written, with character names, and not recorded and sent to me as a recording.)
You could write your exam like a playwright writes dialogue for a stage performance. The characters could include you (and your group members), Mill, Aristotle and Socrates.
Whichever option you choose, be certain not to simply string together quotes from each theorist or strategist as if that tells me, your reader, what each one specifically might think about the conviction and sentencing of Socrates. Instead, you will have to apply each ethical theory or strategy so that it specifically addresses the conviction and sentencing of Socrates.
Some additional considerations:
You should not appeal to relativism as a moral theory.
If you appeal to Mill’s Utilitarian moral theory, recall that the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) is not meant to be applied to small groups (e.g. the jury, Athenian men) but broadly to all sentient beings.
If you appeal to Aristotle’s virtue theory, review his claims about the mean (and deficiency and excess) to be sure you get that correct.
Do not write any paragraph more than half a page.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates