Quote (brmv @ Nov 18 2013 05:56am)
while i am not interested to write your stuff for you
you really should state what level class you are attending
and which philosophers you like
not good to hand in work from someone whose views are substantially different from yours
(as mine likely are
)
this paper will actually have nothing to do with what view you are on, its only how well your argument is. its a 300 level 4 year university class but it really just comes down to how well can you argue for any side of any of the topics i have which are:
1. What does caring about the losers of economic competition entail for Wolff? What do
you think about his position?
2.Is the right to bear arms a fundamental right or interest? Why or why not? Please
use Hughes and Hunt or Lafollette in your answer.
3. Provide a critical analysis of Wilson’s argument against the legalization of drugs.
Please include an explanation of the argument in your own words and a careful analysis
of whether and why the argument works (or does not work).
4. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer breaks down the distinction
between charity and duty. Explain how he does this, and then explain why you think he
is either right or wrong to do so.
it requires some light reading (like 10 pages) to get to know what side each philosopher is on but thats about it