Back to Philosophy of
Law Syllabus
Fall 2005 Prof. Christian Perring
Third Paper.
Draft paper due Wednesday November 30, 2005. At least 3000 words. Early draft papers are welcome.
Paper due midnight Wed, December 14, 2005. 4000-5000 words, double-spaced. Penalty for late papers: 2% per day. Please put your contact information on your final paper, so if I have any urgent needs to contact you before submitting your grade, I will be able to do so.
I will put comments on your draft paper. I recommend but do not require that you meet with me in the first week of December to talk about your draft with me. In working on your draft, you should do more than simply address particular comments I have made. Rather, you should read over your paper, take my comments into consideration, and write a substantial revision of the draft.
Please submit papers via turnitin.com. If you have difficulty using this, you can send me your paper in email as an attachment.
The turnitin.com class ID is: 1360699
The password is: dworkin
Use MLA or APA format for citations.
Your paper should refer to at least 5 scholarly sources. At least 3 of these should not be from the course textbook. To find scholar articles or books, I recommend using the library resources: you can browse through books in the library catalog or on the library shelves, or search through databases such as the Philosophers' Index.
Good grammar and clear writing are essential. Make sure that each sentence is clear and grammatical. Make sure that each paragraph has one main point and explains that point clearly. Make sure your paper is logically structured, with an introduction that sets out what you plan to do, and that it is clear to the reader how your argument is proceeding. It is often helpful to plan out the structure of your paper at the start. It is generally helpful to have a final paragraph that summarizes your conclusion. All three questions ask you to justify your ideas, and you need to provide the strongest arguments you can. It is better to give one or two arguments very thoroughly and systematically rather than to give many brief defenses of your claims without ever setting any of them out in detail.
A satisfactory paper (C grade) needs to demonstrate a basic understanding of the central ideas of the philosophers under discussion and to have a coherent stance towards those ideas. A good paper (B grade) needs to have a strong command of the central ideas of the philosophers under discussion and to have a plausible argument about the strength of the arguments under consideration. An excellent paper (A grade) needs to have a strong command of both the central ideas and the peripheral arguments of the philosophers under discussion and also needs to have a convincing argument about the truth or falsity of the arguments under consideration.
Topics: Answer ONE of the following questions:
1. Explain Dworkin's view of how judges should determine the nature of law, as set out in some of his major papers or books, (e.g., "The Model of Rules," or Law's Empire). Explain how this method can be used to decide whether there is a constitutional right to privacy in the USA. Discuss and evaluate Dworkin's reasoning.
2. Should there be any legal limits on speech within western democracies on people who support or advocate terrorist actions against those democracies? Make sure your discussion addresses the theoretical roots of the issue and explain how the argument is stronger than arguments for some main opposing views.
3. Should a person ever be excused for criminal action (to some degree or completely) on the grounds that he or she was experiencing powerful cravings for a substance or was experiencing a depressed mood? (You do not need to cover both cases if you do not want to). Explain what theory of responsibility you are using and how that justifies your answer. Make sure you explain how your view is better supported than some main opposing views.