The paper must include an introductory paragraph, which provides an overview of your paper. This paragraph should specify what topic you will discuss, what literature you will cover, and the conclusion that you will draw. Think of the introductory paragraph as a road map to your entire paper, which provides an overview of what’s to come in the rest of the paper.

The body of your paper should set out the topic/issue that you will address, and provide an argument (or arguments) in support of a position on this topic/issue.

– The body of your paper can include exposition of literature that we have covered in class, or outside literature that you find yourself.

– However, no more than 50% of your paper should be devoted exposition. (If you rely on literature that we have covered in class, then you not only have the readings themselves, but also my lecture notes outlining that material. I already know what my lecture notes say, and I do not want a paper in which 90% of it just repeats my lecture notes back to me. That sort of paper involves essentially no work on your part. But even if you use outside literature, you must still keep the exposition to no more than 50% of your paper. An ethics/philosophy paper is about critically analyzing and developing your own line of argument on a particular topic; it’s not a report.)

– Be sure that you provide a clear line of argument. (Recall all of the arguments that we have encountered in the literature we’ve read this semester. Many arguments can be boiled down to 3 or 4 or 5 premises and a conclusion. However, a lot can be said about, and in support of, each premise. So it may be that the argument you provide in your paper can be boiled down to a 3 or 4 premise argument. But the paper itself may contain extended discussion of this argument and its premises. And of course, you are also welcome to offer more than one argument in your paper.) The key is to always think of your argument in premise/conclusion format, and to make sure that the conclusion of your argument follows from the premises that you rely on.

– Even though the argument of your paper may not abbreviated in premise/conclusion format, it often helps to write out your argument this way on a separate sheet of paper, in order to examine it and make sure that it works (is logically valid and sound).

The paper must also include a concluding paragraph, which states what you have done in your paper. This paragraph should briefly summarize what you have argued in your paper and state the conclusion(s) that you have drawn.

Please let me know if you have any specific questions about the format of the paper, which may not be covered in these guidelines.

In the works of Singer, Hardin, & Rolston, we are offered competing views about how we should approach population growth & poverty. Consider each theorist’s view on the relationship between our moral obligations to impoverished people and how this relates to the environment. As we know from previous readings (“All Animals are Equal”), Singer endorses sentientism (the view that all sentient beings deserve moral consideration). This means that Singer gives moral standing to humans and (sentient) animals, but not to non-sentient nature. In the case of humans, Singer believes that each of us is morally obligated to give as much as we can until we are just barely better off than the most impoverished person. Singer’s position seems to give little consideration to the environment, because sentient beings are the only things that have moral standing. (Recall Sagoff’s contrast between Singer’s animal liberation ethics and an environmental ethic.) Of course, Singer will still recognize that the some minimal level of decent environment is instrumentally necessary for the survival/preservation of sentient beings. But presumably he would have us sacrifice the environment up to that point for the sake of sentient beings.

Hardin, on the other hand, believes that we have no moral obligations to impoverished people. In fact, he believes that we have an obligation not to give anything to impoverished people, because that would lead to disasterous consequences for all of us, including unsustainable environmental degradation. However, Hardin’s position is not for the sake of the environment—he does not give moral consideration to the environment itself—but rather, is simply due to the necessity of a sustainable environment so that at least some of us survive (and we have extra capacity to avoid catastrophes, should they arise). So Hardin’s approach may save (or help to save) the environment to a greater extent than Singer’s position, but at the expense of many humans dying from poverty.