Due Date: December 10thAll instructions are attached. This is a rework of order #70957, got the okay to resubmit as new order instead of a refund. Thank you!!
Paper Revision of Order 70957 PAPER REVISION OF ORDER #70957 1 / 2 UTILITARIAN / RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT OVERVIEW This is a course in moral philosophy and the topic is very specific: Can the legal institution of punishment be morally justified? The reason this philosophical question arises is because "legal punishment" is, in part, defined in terms of the concept of coercion, and coercion is prima facie morally wrong. Do not write, for example, about what you think is going on with the legal system in the United States (or anywhere else in particular) currently, or about your experiences when you or someone you know were in prison. Review very carefully the requirements for writing philosophy papers in general. Keep in mind that the key to a good topic is that it be sufficiently specific so that you can discuss it fully in 6 pages. Hence, your topic cannot be "retributive theory of punishment" as such for that would be too general. Secondly, your topic must be connected directly to at least one primary reading and focus on an aspect of what is argued in that article. Your paper topic cannot be an entire article itself, either. The best way to think of what might be a good topic to write on is in terms of the following formula: In the article X the author Y argues for claims A,B,C and in this paper I will present his/her position regarding those claims and in the normative part of the paper I will argue for my own opinion, O, regarding claims ABC. Thus you might want, to give an example, to consider a topic like this: In his work Bentham offers a utilitarian theory of punishment, but he also sets clear limits to punishment, that is cases in which it would be (morally) unjustified to punish and gives reasons for those limits. In this paper I will review Bentham's argued views on the limits of legal punishment and in the normative section I will argue that [........]. What those dots at the end mean is that you are in fact absolutely free to take as your position any claim you want regarding the material you present in the descriptive section of your paper as long as you argue for it. PAPER REVISION OF ORDER #70957 2 / 2 REQUIREMENTS 6 pages (double space); it should offer a discussion of a selected issue on a topic in the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment, using only the material from the course. 1. This is not a research paper. 2. You are responsible for formulating your paper topic based only on the readings for this course. You can formulate your topic on the basis of at least one or any combinations of the readings that cover the Utilitarian or Retributive theory of punishment. **Topic below** 3. A clear three-part format of the paper: (i) The shortest possible introductory paragraph, possibly consisting of just 2-3 sentences that identify your topic, the article(s) your discussion is based on, and the claim you will be defending. (i) Descriptive part, which must be written in a way that would be useful to someone who never had this class and never read what you did, thus making the issues, claims, and arguments from the reading(s) by the author(s) you are presenting very clear to third parties. (iii) Normative part that offers your critical analysis of the arguments presented in the descriptive part (and accurately attributed to appropriate author(s)) and a defense of the claims you are prepared to make on your topic. __________________________________________________________ MAIN READING SOURCE • Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781), Chapters I, III, XII-XV (Available online at: http://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/index.html) // Bentham will be the main source reading for this paper. Remember that this paper will focus on an aspect but not necessarily a summary of the entire article. // The formula for expressing a topic does not require that it be based solely on a single primary source, but you must identify specific claims from one, two or three articles if you choose to identify similar or contrasting claims and arguments to discuss. If you chose to utilize more than one reading source to support an aspect in Bentham, please use the following link to have access to the other approved articles/readings: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10EJdy36VE4yZKavEta-pNQbWqNfOlBIf?usp=sharing