Ethical Inquiry                                   Third Paper Assignment                                               Due: December 5

Basic Assignment: Write a four to six page essay in which you 1) explain the three basic options in metaethics: relativism, nihilism and objectivism and 2) explain your view about which of these options is most likely to be correct.  In other words, your job is to defend relativism or nihilism or objectivism and to explain why you reject the alternative views. 

Some further guidelines:

1.  This is hard.  Really hard.  Do the best you can in the space available.

2.  Your essay should demonstrate that you have read carefully and taken account of the ideas presented in the reading.  If you want to support your preference for one of these theories by offering an argument, and if that argument is discussed in the readings, then your discussion should take account of the points made in the reading.  For example, if you wanted to defend relativism by appealing to what Schafer-Landau calls "the argument from disagreement" (FOE, p. 327), then you should explain why you think that argument is a good one, despite the criticisms Schafer-Landau offers of it and despite the criticisms offered by Gensler (EL, p. 204) and Bambrough (EL, p. 220).

3. Try to explain and rebut the most important or most common objections to the metaethical theory you choose. (You may not have space for all of these, so choose the objections you think are most important.)  What will count as an adequate reply to an objection depends on what sort of objection it is.  But, in general, try to explain why the objection should not convince a reasonable person to reject your preferred view. 

4.  I will be evaluating your paper primarily by assessing how clearly you state your position and the reasoning behind it; how alert you are to the variety of possible alternatives and objections to your position that might come from other metaethical perspectives; how accurately you have explained the arguments of those who disagree with you; and how cogent and thorough your replies to those arguments are.  I will not be judging your paper on the basis of my opinion about the correctness of your position.