Home

Overview and Instructions
You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop one of these three, Welfare, Univeral Health Care as a right, or Capital Punishment, for your second and final essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. Be sure to include ideas from the readings on what grounds our basic human rights. 
You must answer all parts of the question to receive credit. Your answers need to be written as short essays (200-350 words for each question and 1000-1500 words total). You must include an introduction and conclusion, and quotations or paraphrases must be appropriately cited.
In addition, it is essential to think of this essay as a development of your previous work — you won’t merely copy over that earlier work and then add an introduction and a conclusion. Instead, you will use my feedback, reflections, and review to revise and expand the case analysis you chose for this final essay. This project will open up in week seven, giving you more time. It is not included because you will need feedback on the affirmative action case.
If you have questions about any of this, please email me immediately. You can also check out this material on philosophical essay writing. 
Topics
Welfare
In this essay, you have five tasks:
Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Walzer’s and Murray’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying who each philosopher would give the welfare to and why.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Rebecca and Jimmy.
Consider Rebecca, a single mother of 4 who has been a long-term welfare recipient. Rebecca is a weekend meth user who often spends her money on meth. However, without her welfare money, her children would not have any food or medical treatment and would most likely be placed in foster homes where their lives would go worse than they currently are. Rebecca’s yearly welfare application is due.
Now consider Jimmy, a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the battle, Jimmy was wounded and now suffers from some moderate physical disability and post-traumatic stress. Sadly, although Jimmy tried to find a job, there weren’t many systems to help him re-integrate or work through his issues. Each day, Jimmy begs for money at his local off-ramp. Jimmy has fallen through the proverbial cracks through no fault of his own. Jimmy applies for welfare.
You are the welfare overseer. At most, one person can get welfare. You can make ONE of the following three decisions:
Give the welfare only to Rebecca.
Give the welfare only to Jimmy.
Don’t give any welfare.
Healthcare
In this essay, you have five tasks:
Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Bradley’s and Peikoff’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying in which world each philosopher would place Jim and why.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Jim.
Consider Jim. Jim has worked in middle management his entire life. He had the option of paying into his company’s managed healthcare system but decided he wanted to keep the money instead and invest it in case he ever needed acute medical treatment. Unfortunately, on his 40th birthday, Jim bought a red Corvette with that money. 6 months later, Jim went to a doctor to see why he felt so awful. The doctor diagnosed Jim with emphysema, diabetes, and kidney failure. All three of these conditions are the result of Jim’s lifestyle choices: smoking, poor eating and exercise habits, and excessive drinking. These conditions are chronic and will require treatment for the rest of Jim’s life, including cutting-edge lung and kidney treatments and weekly meetings with a nutritionist, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc.
Here are the two possible healthcare “worlds” for Jim (he must be “placed” in one of them):
Participate in a universal healthcare system, paid for by income taxes, which doesn’t provide Jim with the latest and greatest medical technology but does meet basic standards of care.
Participate in a pay-for-service system, which allows Jim to pay for whatever treatment he wants and/or can afford but will not treat him unless he pays for the service.
Capital Punishment
In this essay, you have five tasks: 
Explain your understanding of the case. 
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of the ACLU paper, Kant and Van den Haag’s arguments, and the readings on the grounding of human rights in nature or personhood. Integrate the ideas and videos of what grounds rights. Also integrate other readings from the course as you are able. Please note that virtue ethics and natural law both work well with human rights as natural rights and the dignity of personhood. Give a thorough discussion of The Essential View of the Dignity of Each Human Person grounded in nature or personhood.
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. Th
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand. 
In ONE paragraph, please explain how you think we should treat Bob.
Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be average, there is no way to test it since Bob doesn’t speak or read human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up in downtown Long Beach. He was hungry (presumably), so he “found” some food in the usual wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it, and there were lots of witnesses.