Paper 2 Prompts

Pick one of the following prompts and write a 4 page paper guided by that prompt.
Please indicate at the top of the paper and in the file name which prompt you are
responding to. Drafts are due on May 7th, peer reviews are due by May 13th and final
drafts are due by May 20th. All assignments should be uploaded to Blackboard via the
relevant link under the Assignments tab.
Good Luck!
1. Explain Carol Adamss argument that women should become vegetarians in
order to destabilize the existing patriarchal injustices. Then explain Christina
Van Dykes response to this argument. Finally, say who you think is right and
why.
(Main texts will be Chapter 1 of Adamss The Sexual Politics of Meat, and Van
Dykes Gendered Eating)
2. Explain Lori Gruens argument against traditional ethical theories (be sure to
explain what Gruen means by the phrase traditional ethical theories), and
then give one reason for thinking that Gruens argument fails. Finally, say
whether you think this reason is decisive and why, i.e. can the reason you gave
for rejecting Gruens argument be responded to or does it establish that
Gruens argument is unsuccessful?
(Main texts will be the excerpts from Gruens Entangled Empathy, and
Gruens Empathy and Vegetarian Commitments)
3. Explain Sherry Colbs response to the argument that if you are a vegan you
should also oppose abortion, and then present one way of responding to Colbs
argument. Finally, say whether that counterargument is decisive and why, i.e.
can the counterargument you gave against Colb be responded to or does it
establish that Colbs argument is unsuccessful?
(Main text is Chapter 7 of Colbs Mind if I Order the Cheeseburger)
4. Explain the argument that Judaism or Christianity, in light of their sacred texts,
provide a legitimate basis for speciesism (focus on either Judaism or
Christianity). Then explain Tom Regans response to this argument. Finally,
say whether you think Regans argument is plausible and why.
(Main text is Regans Christians are what Christians Eat for supplemental
reading see Matthew Haltemans pamphlet on the Humane Society Website:
Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation)
5. Explain Coates argument that we have a special responsibility to help
African-Americans suffering from poverty, and explain why it seems to follow
that we have a special responsibility to help African-Americans experiencing
food insecurity. Then consider how opponents might respond to this argument.
Come up with the strongest objection they might pose to this line of
argumentation. Finally, evaluate this objection: can it be responded to or does
it point out a deep flaw in this line of argumentation?
(Main text is Coates piece in The Atlantic The Case for Reparations and

lecture slides for "Ethics and Food Insecurity", "Food Justice" and "More
Food Justice".)
6. Consider Brad Dingman's view that because we have been consuming an
animal diet for over 300,000 years, it must be the ethically right thing to do.
Explain one argument for this claim, and one argument against it. Finally, say
which argument you think is decisive and why.
(Main Text is Dingmans Reclamation)
7. Explain Jesse McEntees argument that contemporary localism does not
improve food access. The give one reason you might reject this argument.
Finally, say whether you think this argument is decisive and why, i.e. can it be
responded to or does is successfully show that McEntees conclusion is
mistaken?
(Main text is McEntees Realizing Rural Food Justice,)
Some Notes:
Writing Philosophy: If you are new to philosophy/this is your first philosophy class
you need to read Pryors paper on writing philosophy papers (available on Bb). You
are also encouraged to speak to one of us about your paper either by private
appointment or during office hours.
Advice: In writing your paper be sure to:
1. Give the best formulation you can of the argument(s) involved. In doing
so,
a) State the main steps of the argument(s), not necessarily in the order in
which they are expressed in the text. You will probably have
to select from what the author actually says. It is wise not to have too
many main steps.
b) Indicate which steps are premises (starting points) and which are
conclusions. Do not include any premise on which the argument does
not actually depend.
c) Explain what you take to be the authors evidence or rationale for each
step, drawing on any relevant indications in the assigned reading. Is
this good evidence? If you can think of some more or better evidence,
mention that also.
2. Evaluate the argument in the following minimal way:
a) State whether it is valid (i.e. must the conclusion be true if the
premises are true?)
Limits: 4 pages is the ideal, 5 pages is an absolute limit (any material over 5 pages
will not be considered). Only deal with as much material as you think you can
adequately handle in a paper of this lengthi.e., if you feel that you can only answer
part of one of the questions above, then feel free to discuss only that part (just make it
clear in your introduction what youre doing, and remind us in the conclusion what
you did).

Handouts: Feel free to draw on what we have said in class and the handout. Just cite
them if you do, and make sure you ultimately go beyond them. Any plagiarism will
automatically result in an F on the paper.
Formatting: Please use 12-point type, Normal margins (i.e. 1 inch on the top and
bottom, 1.25 inches on the left and right), Times New Roman font or equivalent,
Double (x2) line spacing.
Citing: Chicago manual of style is preferred, but MLA is also fine as long as youre
consistent.