Does this paper identify have a clear ? (5%)
Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly? (5%)
Does the paper attribute the correct view to the philosophers in question? (10%)
Is/are the philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?
(For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)
(25%)
Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion? (15%)
Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a hodgepodge of disparate ideas? (10%)
Does the conclusion tie together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a non-sequitur? (5%)
Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the college level? (5%)
Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%) Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s own work?
Topic: Present Ruth Benedict’s primary argument. Then present James Rachels’s criticism. Whose argument would Justin Macbrayer find to be superior? Justify your answer. Cite all the relevant texts to support your claims.
Visit the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy found here (https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH3c). Pick one of the arguments from section 3 and present it. Then, determine what James Rachels and Ray Prebble might say about it. Which argument do you think better lives up to the standards of philosophy? (You may also want to look at further discussion of moral relativism found here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#ExpPhi)