Moral and Legal Problems

Paper Mechanics

1. The paper should be between 1000-1700 words. You must include a word count of your paper at the end of the paper.
2. Your name, your student number, and the date should appear, single-spaced, at the top left-hand side of the first page. The body of the paper should be in 12-point font, double-spaced, with 2.54 cm margins, and page numbers. Please use only doc or docx. format. The paper doesn’t require a title page, but it should have a title (but not “Paper Two”. Try to think of a catchy title!) You must use MLA style in your paper. If you’re unaware of the requirements for MLA style, here is a link: http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/writing/mla

Paper Requirements

1. This is an argumentative paper that asks you to defend your own position on the issue of pornography, abortion, or hate speech. This is not a research paper outlining how philosophers have thought about these issues. While I can’t prohibit you from using outside philosophical sources, I strongly discourage you from using them, especially from the internet. Everything you need to write this paper is available from the lectures, the lecture slides, and readings. (However, you are certainly free to consult news stories from reputable websites about these issues, and then reference them properly.) If you have questions about how to formulate your position, see me during office hours.

2. Your paper must include the following essential requirements. Please consult the “Tips” sheets I have posted on Canvas for a detailed explanation of each of these elements. If you have any questions, please discuss them with me during office hours. NOTE: one of the “Tips” sheets discusses raising an objection. You are notrequired to raise an objection against your argument in this paper (although you’re certainly free to do so if you wish.)
3. An introduction to the debate or problem you’re addressing in your paper
4. A thesis statement
5. An exposition of the general debate and the argument of the philosopher(s)
6. An argument defending your thesis
7. A conclusion
8. In-text references (Please note: your paper will be penalized by at least 1/3 of a letter grade for failing to include proper references.)

Instructions for submitting papers

1. You must submit a copy of your second paper to Canvas on Monday, December 12^th, by 11:59pm. I will not accept papers via email. Late copies are accepted but you will be penalized 2% per day for each day the paper is late. No late copies will be accepted one week after the due date, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

2. You must submit a copy of your paper to turnitin.com. I cannot post your grade for this assignment until you submit it.

3. If you get assistance on your paper, please note the following:
4. Your ideas must be your own. A tutor cannot come up with your thesis statement.
5. You must write the paper yourself.
6. If you get assistance with your writing, you need to document this. Keep all versions/notes of your paper, just in case I ask to see them. Be prepared to provide a name and a phone number of the person who assisted you.

Choose one of the following topics:

1. Imagine the following scenario. In country X, there exist many beliefs about the inferiority of women. In this country, women are not granted political or civil rights; they receive only minimal education; and they are not permitted to make any important economic or social decisions regarding their lives. In short, women in country X live very restricted lives. Now, imagine further that a woman living in this country becomes pregnant with a healthy female fetus but she wants to abort it. This woman decides to have an abortion because she does not want her daughter to grow up in a country in which females lead such restricted lives.

Pick one of the philosophers who have discussed abortion, i.e., Don Marquis, Judith Thomson, or Rosalind Hursthouse. Explain how he/she would evaluate the woman’s decision to have an abortion. This means that you must explain his/her argument concerning the morality of abortion and explain whether he/she would think the woman’s decision to have an abortion is morally justified or not.

Then provide an argument explaining whether this thinker’s position on the morality of abortion is defensible, i.e., whether it is the right position to take on the woman’s decision to have an abortion. If you argue that the thinker’s position is the right position to take on the woman’s choice to have an abortion, support his/her view by defending it against a potential objection. Or, if you argue that the thinker’s position is the wrong position to take on the woman’s choice to have an abortion, explain where he/she goes wrong with his/her argument.

You’re free to introduce other ethical theories or theorists to make your argument, but it’s not necessary to do so. If you introduce other theories or theorists in your paper, do so cautiously and only to help strengthen your own argument. Don’t sacrifice the development of your own argument to present the views of someone else.

• In August 2021, the owners of OnlyFans, a subscription-based social media platform, announced that they would no longer permit creators to upload sexually explicit content, on the grounds that financial institutions would not permit subscribers to use credit cards on the site if sexually explicit content was permitted. However, the owners reversed this decision, after an outcry from content creators and subscribers, and after an agreement with reached with some financial institutions. (Here is a link to the story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/onlyfans-1.6152528)

The question you’re addressing in your paper is: Should OnlyFans ban sexually explicit content?

Pick one of the philosophers who have discussed pornography, i.e., Andrew Altman, Catharine Mackinnon, or Susan Brison. Explain how he/she would evaluate OnlyFans decision to continue to allow sexually explicit content. This means that you must explain his/her argument concerning the morality of pornography and whether he/she would agree or not that OnlyFans should allow sexually explicit content on the platform. (Remember: your paper isn’t concerned with evaluating whether OnlyFans made the correct business decision, but whether its choice to allow this content is morally justified.)

Then provide an argument explaining whether this thinker’s position on OnlyFans allowing sexually explicit content is defensible, i.e., whether you think his/her evaluation is the correct position to take or not. If you argue that the thinker’s position is the right position to take on OnlyFans’s decision, support his/her view by defending it against a potential objection. Or, if you argue that the thinker’s position is the wrong position to take, explain where he/she goes wrong with his/her argument.

You’re free to introduce other ethical theories or theorists to make your arguments, but it’s not necessary to do so. If you introduce other theories or theorists in your paper, do so cautiously and only to help strengthen your own argument. Don’t sacrifice the development of your own argument to present the views of someone else.

• Jocelyn Maclure argues that hate speech, but not hurtful speech, should be legally restricted in Canada. What are her arguments for this claim? Is she justified in her claim that one kind of speech, but not the other, should be legally tolerated? If you agree with her claim, why? If not, why not? (Note that if you agree with her position, it’s not sufficient to say “I agree.” You should raise an objection against her view, and then respond to it on her behalf.) Finally, provide the “upshot” of your argument for Maclure’s overall view. (For example, should we reconsider accepting Maclure’s view, in light of your argument?)

• Jocelyn Maclure argues that hate speech, but not hurtful speech, should be legally restricted in Canada. What are her arguments for this claim? Within Maclure’s theoretical framework, would pornography that is violent and degrading to women be considered hurtful speech? Hate speech? Neither? Provide an argument defending your response. Finally, provide the “upshot” of your argument for Maclure’s overall view. (For example, should we reconsider accepting Maclure’s view, in light of your argument?)