PHIL 252: Contemporary Moral Problems Brainstorming Critical Engagement

NOTE: this worksheet is something that can be used to help find targets for philosophical and
critical engagement; since arguments are often based on sub-arguments (so you need to
defend a particular claim or view in order to then use it to advance another point), you can
use this worksheet to isolate only a particular part of an assigned reading

Author’s View & Argument

1. What is the conclusion (or particular claim) of the paper (or part of the paper) that you are
looking at? State this in your own words and try to use no more than 1-2 sentences.

2. What reasons does the author give to support that particular conclusion or claim?
NOTE: there might be more or less than 3; if more, identify the three most central reasons
a. REASON #1 –

b. REASON #2 –

c. REASON #3 –

3. What type of reasoning does this seem most related to? Check any you think are relevant,
and then circle the one that you think is most important or prominent in their argument.

Reasoning focused on getting certain good outcomes (e.g. Utilitarianism)

Reasoning focused on following certain moral rules or moral duties (e.g. Deontology)

Reasoning focused on personal character and motivation/intention (e.g. Virtue Theory)

Reasoning focused on empathy for others and addressing their needs (e.g. Care Ethics)

Reasoning focused on institutional rules society would agree on (e.g. Social Contract)

Reasoning focused on impacts to social groups and power dynamics (e.g. Social Justice)
PHIL 252: Contemporary Moral Problems Brainstorming Critical Engagement

TARGETING YOUR CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT

NOTE: this doesn’t have to mean that you have to entirely object to an argument and try to
“destroy it”; often strong critical engagement will come in the form of constructive criticism
or a recognition of a possible objection and then your response to that

3 Common Routes for Engaging the Argument

[remember you only need one route or argumentative strategy to provide strong engagement – these are
just three of the most common; it can be helpful to look in different directions before fully developing one]
1. Do you disagree with one of their reasons that you identified above? If so, explain why you
think this reason either doesn’t support the conclusion or why this reason is false.

2. Are there any relevant considerations the author’s fails to address? If so, explain why these
are relevant and why not including them is a problem.

3. Would a different type of reasoning better address the moral issues? If so, explain why this
other type of reasoning is better (and it can’t be “because it gets a different answer”).