PHIL 4010: Senior Seminar                                                                                                                              Paper 2

Due: December 11, 2007

 

Instructions:

1.  The paper should be 5-7 pages long, double-spaced, with no more than 1" margins in a 12 point font.

 

2.  The paper should be organized around an argument for a conclusion.

 

3.  Topics may be of your choosing, though some suggestions are offered below.  Consider clearing your topic with the instructor first.  A good topic should engage issues and readings we have considered in the class.

 

4.  We've covered a great deal of ground, but a well organized paper will focus on a single issue or argument and develop a sustained response to that.

 

Some sample topics:

 

1.  Consider Greene et al.'s explanation of the common, asymmetric response to the trolley/footbridge problems.  Suggest an alternative hypothesis for this response, and suggest an experiment that would distinguish your view from Greene's.

 

2.  Haidt suggests that moral reasoning typically occurs after moral judgment.  Critically consider one or more pieces of evidence Haidt offers for this model.

 

3.  Joshua Knobe has discovered a surprising asymmetry in the attribution of intention to agents vis-ˆ-vis their production of side effects, but there remains substantial disagreement about the correct description of the side effect.  Wade into this debate, explain the disagreement, and explain who (if anyone) is right.

 

4.  We read a series of papers regarding intuitions about free will and determinism.  Consider:

(a) the specifics of the experiments, and what they purport to prove

or  (b) whether the experiments taken together show anything about the relationship of determinism to freedom of the will

or (c) whether further experiments might better illuminate the relationship between freedom, responsibility, and determinism.  (You should plan to describe such experiments).

 

5.  Paul Griffiths and his collaborators make the case for an experimental philosophy of science.  Compare the approach Griffiths takes (in either paper) with a more traditional approach (e.g. that exemplified in Mallon and Weinberg).  What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?  Are both worthwhile?

 

6.  Engage Hitchcock or Lambrozo's work in considering the role experimental work might play in illuminating concepts of causation.