Directions and Assignment Information:
This paper should be a minimum of 1500 words (NOT including reference list/title/header information) and a maximum of 2000 words. Each short critical analysis paper will be graded out of 20 points (see rubric for scoring papers for details on what constitutes an “A” paper).
You are expected to work independently on your paper. You should begin with the case information I have provided as your starting off point (this will help narrow this topic). In addition, I expect that you will utilize AT LEAST two of the articles I have provided, as well as intersect with some of the course material to this point. You do not have to do any external research; however, if you choose to do so, you are limited to TWO other scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources.
Finally, I have provided questions to assist you in getting started with your analysis (after paper structure info). You do not have to focus your analysis on these questions–I have provided them so that those new to philosophy/this topic might have some structured guidance. However, if you choose to do so, explore NO MORE THAN two questions in your paper. Be sure to compare/contrast different ethical theories/perspectives for your analysis.
As always, email () or stop by my office hours with questions.
Suggested paper structure:
I. Introduction (approx. 1 page or less–250 words) A. State and explain the purpose of the paper
1. Define any technical terms in the paper topic/question
B. State and explain the philosophical problem/question(s) you will explore/thesis C. State what your conclusion will be
II. Compare and contrast ethical theories as they relate to this question
A. Identify common themes (for example, hedonism and utilitarianism have overlapping aims)
1. Point out relevant stylistic, historical, theoretical differences
2. Point out where two different words/terms actually mean the same thing and where
two of the same words have different meanings
B. Compare and contrast how the theories might interpret the question under consideration
1. Point out how conclusions differ and how they are the same III. Pick your position and defend it
A. State which position you agree with
1. Remind the reader of the main idea behind the position
B. Defend this position
1. Explain why you have chosen this position
IV. Criticize the position you have chosen (from the perspective of the other position) A. Remind the reader of the other position
B. Assume the persona of your opponent and criticize your own defense
V. Re-defend your original position in light of the new criticism VI. Conclusion (approx. 1 paragraph–100 words)
A. Briefly restate the purpose of the paper
B. Briefly restate the main philosophical points C. Briefly restate your position
D. Wrap up any loose end
Animal Rights Case Questions Directions & Analysis Questions Short Analysis Paper PHIL 2000: Ethics
Questions for analysis (use no more than TWO):
1) What are the basic criticisms that PETA makes of KFC? Are they convincing? Why or why not? Discuss your response from the perspective of an ethical theory of your choice.
a. What methods and arguments has KFC used to support its actions? Is it conducting the best defense? Why or why not? Discuss your response from the perspective of an ethical framework of your choice.
2) Do you support the KFC Corporation or PETA in this controversy? Some mixture of both? Why or why not? Discuss your response from the perspective of an ethical theory of your choice.
3) Is the range of PETA’s actions acceptable? Why does the group use controversial tactics? What are its sources of power in corporate campaigns? Discuss your response from the perspective of an ethical theory of your choice.
4) Do business owners have a duty to tailor their practices in response to public sentiments/values? Why or why not?
a. Do businesses have a hand in shaping public values or do they simply reflect public values? b. Is PETA reflective of general public values? Why or Why not?
c. Does KFC protect animal welfare at an acceptable level? Why or Why not?
5) Is it proper for PETA to pressure KFC for change when the company is following the law and public customs? Does PETA represent so compelling a truth or enough people to justify attacks on, and perhaps damage to, major corporations supported by millions of customers, employees, and stockholders?
a. What is being missed if PETA merely follows the law and public custom in dissenting to corporate practices?
b. What other modes of evaluation might justify PETA’s actions? How are these modes of evaluation different from corporate evaluations of values? Are these modes of evaluation fundamentally incommensurable? Why or why not?
6) Do animals have rights? If so, what are they? If not, why not?
a. Are these rights the result of animals being moral agents? If so, why are we justified in thinking of animals as moral agents in the same way humans are moral agents? If not, does this necessarily mean animals have no rights?
b. What duties do humans beings have toward animals? What grounds these duties?