Explicit consent

Description

– Between 1500-2000 words

– Write with precision and clarity — no flowery language

Here’s a suggested roadmap for a paper:

Introduction: Just one paragraph, two at the most. Briefly describe your topic, clearly state your central thesis, and say what each section of the paper will do.

Section 1: Explaining what happens in the texts you’re evaluating.

Section 2: Make a strong argument of your own in support of your thesis. (E.g. “The best way for Locke to address the rarity of explicit consent is…”)

Section 3: Objections! Explain at least one way that a reasonable person might think that your argument in support of your thesis (from section 2) doesn’t work. Then explain why the worry you’ve named is not a good one. (Feel free to do this step multiple times—bring up more than one objection, and then show why each one doesn’t succeed.)

Appiah and Haslanger on semantic externalism. Appiah and Haslanger, in attempting to determine the meanings of race-vocabulary, both talk about semantic externalist theories. (Appiah’s example of an externalist theory is the “causal theory of reference,” which he calls a referentialist approach to meaning.) Haslanger claims that these theories make trouble for error theorists/eliminativists like Appiah; Appiah thinks that, even on these views, we should adopt an error theory/eliminativism about race. Explain how both arguments work. Then weigh the merits of the arguments against one another, and explain which is more promising.4 attachmentsSlide 1 of 4

• attachment_1attachment_1
• attachment_2attachment_2
• attachment_3attachment_3