Argumentative essay using Jeremy Bentham’s theories

Paper details:

We need to write a 4-6 page argumentative essay. Here are the instructions and what we will be graded on:
Your term paper should be written exactly according to the following technical guidelines:

Only papers submitted as Word (.doc/.docx) or Adobe (.pdf) documents will be accepted and graded.

At the top right should appear your full name, the date, and your course and section numbers. That’s it.

Typed, double-spaced, aligned left (not justified), paragraphs indented, with 1” margins all around, and please – no titles.

12 pt. Times New Roman font (i.e., the same font this page has been done in).

I am looking for good, concise, cogent argument – not length – I’d rather the paper be somewhat short(er) and to the point, than long and needlessly drawn out with pseudo-academic filler material gleaned from the text, internet, etc. I want to know what you know; not what the authors you read (and I) already know.

You must cite at least 1 print source in addition to your text – books, journal articles, etc.
You must use footnotes to cite your sources.

It should go without saying but bears repeating here that Wikipedia, Spark Notes, etc. are neither sound nor reliable resources for collegiate academic work, and should neither be consulted nor “borrowed from.”

Any and all instances of academic dishonesty, i.e., plagiarism, will not be tolerated and will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately harshly – at the very least it certainly will constitute a failing grade for the term paper, and may result in a failing grade for the entire semester, and/or a referral to the academic dean.
You are to write, using any one of the particular philosophers’ theories or concepts that you have read, been taught, or that have been discussed throughout the entire semester, a practical and applied use in the real world. Specifically, you are to summarize one philosopher’s most prominent theories, and those theories’ potential for practical application in your area of personal, professional, or academic interest.

Your term paper should take the form of:

1) Introduce your paper. We’re studying the great moral philosophers, and all of our philosophers have been included for very good reasons; your introduction should indicate your understanding of the main reason(s) for your philosopher’s inclusion, as well as what makes them worthy of our attention.

2) Summarize the key concepts (at least one; no more than three) posited and developed by that philosopher – this should include what their philosophy replaced and/or what has replaced it since, if applicable, and should show a well-rounded understanding of their work both in and of itself, as well as within the context of the overall academic study and applied practice of Ethics.

▪ 2A) Included in your summary of their work should be topically accurate citations of and quotations from their written work that support the focus of your summary of their main ideas.

◦ 3) Discuss the possibilities of practically applying your chosen philosopher’s work to a contentious issue within a personal, professional, or academic area of your own choosing, most often the one in which you are working in or toward currently, but it could also be an area or topic of merely casual interest to you.

▪ 3A) Included in your section on practical application should be at least one example of a case study or hypothetical situation in your chosen field in which the philosopher’s work could be applied, as well as a discussion of the means by which it would be applied, and, if applicable, resolved.
◦ 4) You should wrap up your term paper by summarizing and tying together the salient points of what you’ve presented in terms of the philosopher’s key concepts and potential for practical application. In most cases, this will be something of a rehashing of your introduction; in other words, tell me what you’re going to do, do it, then tell me what you just did – this is a helpful way to stretch papers to the required length. Don’t think of it as being redundant – think of it as being thorough.

This is NOT a biographical paper – in fact, I will count off if you include extraneous biographical information, especially considering that it (more often than not) will have come from an online source.

Your term paper should be written from an academic perspective, and should assume that your audience (me) understands the basics of ethical theories and you don’t need to flesh them out, but should instead focus on the “meat” of the philosopher – their key concepts, and their relevance to you and your course of study, profession, or personal interests. To do this, you will most likely need to call on additional information that may not be available in your text – may I suggest you check out the Philosophy section of our campus or local library and consult a few or several of the excellent books that are found therein?

This should be accomplished in approximately 4-6 typed pages – i.e., no fewer than 4; no more than 6.

Term Paper Grading Rubric (1)
Term Paper Grading Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdeas
20 pts
Excels in responding to assignment. Interesting, demonstrates sophistication of thought. Cental thesis is clearly communicated, worth developing; limited enough to be manageable. Paper recognizes some complexity of its thesis: may acknowledge its contradictions, qualifications, or limits and follow out their logical implications. Understands and critically evaluates its sources, appropriately limits and defines terms.
16 pts
A solid paper, responding appropriately to assignment. Clearly states a thesis, but may have minor lapses in development. Begins to acknowledge the complexity of central idea and the possibility of other points of view. Shows careful reading of the sources, but may not evaluate them critically. Attempts to define terms, not always successfully.
12 pts
Adequate but weaker and less effective, possibly responding less well to assignment. Presents central idea in general terms, often depending on platitudes or cliches. Usually does not acknolwedge other views. Shows basic comprehension of sources, perhaps with lapses in understanding. If it defines terms, often depends on dictionary definitions.
8 pts
Does not have a clear central idea or does not respond appropriately to the assignment. Thesis may be too vague or obvious to be developed effectively. Paper may misunderstand sources.
4 pts
Does not respond to the assignment, lacks a thesis or central idea, and may neglect to use sources where necessary.
0 pts
Complete lack of effort in every respect.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization & Coherence
20 pts
Uses a logical structure appropriate to paper’s subject, purpose, audience, thesis and disciplinary field. Sophisticated transitional sentences often develop one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations. It guides the reader through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.
16 pts
Shows a logical progression of ideas and uses fairly sophisticated transitional devices; e.g., may move from least to more important idea. Some logical links may be faulty, but each paragraph clearly relates to paper’s central idea.
12 pts
May list ideas or arrange them randomly rather than using any evident logical structure. May use transitions, but they are likely to be sequential (first, second, third) rather than logic-based. While each paragraph may relate to central idea, logic is not always clear. Paragraphs have topic sentences but may be overly general, and arrangement of sentences within paragraphs may lack coherence.
8 pts
May have random organization, lacking internal paragraph coherence and using few or inappropriate transitions. Paragraphs may lack topic sentences or main ideas, or may be too general or too specific to be effective. Paragraphs may not all relate to paper’s thesis.
4 pts
No appreciable organization; lacks transitions and coherence.
0 pts
Entirely unorganized and incoherent.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport
20 pts
Uses evidence appropriately and effectively, providing sufficient evidence and explanation to convince.
16 pts
Begins to offer reasons to support its points, perhaps using varied kinds of evidence. Begins to interpret the evidence and explain connections between evidence and main ideas. Its examples bear some relevance.
12 pts
Often uses generalizations to support its points. May use examples, but they may be obvious or not be relevant. Often depends on unsupported opinion or personal experience, or assumes that evidence speaks for itself and needs no application to the point being disucssed. Often has lapses in logic.
8 pts
Depends on cliches or overgeneralizations for support, or offers little evidence of any kind. may be personal narrative rather than essay, or summary rather than analysis.
4 pts
Uses irrelevant details or lacks supporting evidence entirely. May be unduly brief.
0 pts
Completely irrelevant and way too short.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle
20 pts
Chooses words for their precise meaning and uses an appropriate level of specificity. Sentence style fits paper’s audience and purpose. Sentences are varied, yet clearly structured and carefully focused, not long and rambling.
16 pts
Generally uses words accurately and effectively, but may sometimes be too general. Sentences generally clear, well structured, and focused, though some may be awkward or ineffective.
12 pts
Uses relatively vague and general words, may use some inappropriate language. Sentences structure generally correct, but sentences may be wordy, unfocused, repetitive, or confusing.
8 pts
May be too vague and abstract, or very personal and specific. Usually contains several awkward or ungrammatical sentences; sentence structure is simple or monotonous.
4 pts
Usually contains many awkward sentences, misuses words, employs inappropriate language.
0 pts
Very poorly written.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics
20 pts
Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.
16 pts
May contain a few errors, which may annoy the reader but not impede understanding.
12 pts
Usually contains several mechanical errors, which may temporarily impede the overall understanding.
8 pts
Usually contains either many mechanical errors or a few important errors that block the reader’s understanding and ability to see connections between ideas.
4 pts
Usually contains so many mechanical errors that it is impossible for the reader to follow the thinking from sentence to sentence.
0 pts
Completely incomprehensible.
20 pts
Total Points: 100