Description
Section 1: Argument Summary
Your first section will summarize one of the arguments for or against gun control from either Michael Huemer’s ‘Is there a right to own a gun?’ or David DeGrazia’s ‘The Case for Moderate Gun Control’ . Explain the argument in your own words, using examples, thought experiments, and/or definitions to help explain the author’s position, the moral problem (why we talk about gun control), the argument (for or against gun control), and the implications of the argument (does the argument apply to baseball bats? Nuclear weapons? Why or why not?).
What, if any, social policies regarding gun control does the author argue for or against? (Make sure to clarify whether the argument at hand is a matter of personal ethics or social ethics.)
Section 2: Original Objection (50 points)
In this section, you will raise an original philosophical objection against the position you summarized in section 1.
A satisfactory Section 2 will discuss at least ONE philosophical objection to the argument you discussed in the first section; this will usually consist of giving reasons, and evidence, to doubt the author’s conclusion. DO NOT just say “I disagree;” give reasons why your reader should also disagree.
A satisfactory philosophical objection may do one or more of the following:
• Philosophical writers generally give reasons, or arguments, to support their conclusions. You might argue that their argument fails – perhaps it has a false premise; perhaps the truth of the conclusion has nothing to do with the truth of the premises.
• Sometimes philosophical arguments turn on the meanings of technical terms (“gun”, “right”, etc.). You can argue that the author you’re objecting to is using a bad definition. If you do, give reasons to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the definition and/or offer an alternative definition and give reasons to favor this definition over the author’s. What implications would this have for their view?
• Sometimes an author overestimates the implications of their argument; you could argue that they “go too far” and give reasons, thought experiments, or examples to think this.
• Sometimes an author underestimates or overlooks the implications of their argument; you can argue that they “don’t go far enough” or that they overlook the implications of their view. (For example, maybe the author thinks we have a right to guns, but you think their argument shows more – that we have a right to knives, to anthrax, to nuclear weapons, etc. ) Give reasons to support your position.
• When discussing matters of social ethics, oftentimes an argument will stand or fall on certain moral claims about the scope, purpose, or goals of society. You might argue that the author has the wrong political beliefs, and this undermines their position.
• Sometimes philosophical writers focus on “the wrong issue”; if you think the author neglects a more important issue, you can discuss that issue, and discuss why it overrides or invalidates the author’s argument.
• Finally, sometimes philosophers just make mistakes. They overlook things. They leave out important moral claims. They equivocate between two similar concepts. When reading philosophy, it’s usually a good practice to be charitable and interpret the author as being honest and generally well informed; but mistakes happen. If you think the author has made a mistake; explain it and then try to fix it for them. Give reasons, examples, etc. to support your position.
Works Cited
At the end of your paper, write a short works cited page that cites all of the sources you’ve discussed in your paper.