Moral dilemmas associated with Humanitarian Intervention.
Make a persuasive moral argument on a topic related to military ethics, applying the various concepts and frameworks for moral reasoning. Take a position and make argument. Ethic topics to consider using: Religion Constitutional Paradigm Stoicism Natural Law Utilitarism Kant Just War Theory Just Conduct in War Modern warfare Required Sections of the Paper I. Introduction. A good introduction includes three elements: a. Your research question. What is the question that your paper will be answering and, briefly, why is this question puzzling or interesting or important or all of the above. For this paper, your research question may be a restatement (in your own words) of the questions posed in the prompts provided. b. Your thesis statement. A simple declarative sentence stating your answer to the question you’ve posed. What is your paper going to argue, analyze, describe, or explore? The best thesis statements begin something like this: “In this paper I argue that…” c. Argument road map. In this section, you must provide some indication of the structure of your argument. For example, “My argument proceeds as follows. In section two, I offer some background on issue X. Next, I draw on moral theory A and moral theory B to show that X is morally permissible. In section four I outline the major objections to my thesis and address those objections in section five. I conclude with some proposals for future research.” II. Short Background Factual Summary. In this section, you must define all technical terms regarding your topic and summarize relevant events. It is important to conduct enough research to be specific about your claims. For example, if you are discussing robotic weapon systems you need to be clear about what kind of systems you have in mind, e.g. automated defensive systems, remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs), fully autonomous platforms, etc. If RPVs, specify that you are discussing offensive drones like the Reaper or recon drones, etc. Briefly tell the reader about the capabilities of the system that are relevant to your topic. For certain topics, this section will be very short; in no case should you try to use it to pad your paper. III. Main Argument for Thesis. In this section, you must convince skeptical readers why they should agree with your thesis. Lay out as many arguments are you think you need to convince the audience. An “argument” is an assertion supported by reasons. By the end of this section, readers should have a clear idea just which controversial claim you want to affirm, what it means, and why that claim is true. The supporting arguments can be your own arguments, applications of the philosophical theories studied in class, or compelling arguments you have found in others’ writings on your subject (in which case you must properly cite those writings). For example, ethicists, human rights activists, lawyers, and political scientists have published hundreds of articles about the morality and legality of killing terror suspects with drones. IV. Objections. This is an important part of your paper. You must enter into the mindsets of those who object to your thesis, identify their main reasons for objecting, and articulate those objections with as much power as you can. These objections will fall into either of two categories: either objections to the arguments you provide in section III or objections to the thesis directly. Counterarguments might include: · problems with your arguments, e.g., showing that a different conclusion could be drawn from the same facts, that a key assumption is unwarranted, that a key term is used unfairly, or that certain evidence is ignored or played down; · disadvantages or practical drawbacks to what you propose; · An alternative explanation or proposal that makes more sense. You introduce this self-critical phase of the paper with a phrase like “one might object here that…” or “it might seem that…” or “it is true that…” or “admittedly,” or “Of course”, or with an anticipated challenging question: “But how…?” or “But why…?” or “But isn’t this just…?” or “But if this is so, what about…?” Then you state the case against yourself as briefly but as clearly and forcefully as you can, pointing to evidence where possible. (An obviously feeble or perfunctory counterargument does more harm than good.) [1] V. Replies. Here you respond to the objections articulated in the preceding section. Make sure that it is always clear to the reader just which objection(s) you are addressing. Of course, make sure that your replies are compelling. Your return to your own argument—which you announce with a but, yet, however, nevertheless, or still—must likewise involve careful reasoning, not a flippant (or nervous) dismissal. In reasoning about a proposed counterargument, you may · refute it, showing why it’s mistaken—an apparent but not real problem for your position; · acknowledge its validity or plausibility, but suggest why on balance it’s less important or less likely than what you propose, and thus doesn’t overturn it; or · concede its force and complicate your idea accordingly—restate, explain, and defend your thesis now in a more exact, qualified, or nuanced way that takes account of the objection. This will work if the counterargument concerns only an aspect of your argument; if it undermines your whole case, you need a new thesis. VI. Conclusion – The essay should come to a definitive conclusion about the resolution of the ethical dilemma. That is, based on the arguments, summarize how you defend your (final) thesis. A good conclusion also offers questions that your research has raised but has not answered. You are leaving these questions to future researchers (perhaps ever yourselves