The paper will be based on the reading “What Money Can’t Buy.” In your paper y

The paper will be based on the reading “What Money Can’t Buy.”
In your paper you will have to defend your opinion. More specifically, you will need to explain exactly why you agree or why you disagree with the author’s main argument.
You need to take a side. If you agree with the author, you must explain why you agree, and if you disagree, you will say why you disagree. The main challenge, however, will be to defend your position, that is, to defend your position against a possible and reasonable objection. This means you should think about how someone can disagree with you, and how the opponent can undermine your view in a rational way. This opposing view is called a counterargument.
But showing how someone can reasonably disagree with you is not the end of the challenge. In your paper, you should still properly address the objection. So, think about what you will say to the person who disagrees with you; ask yourself how you could convince the opponent that your argument is, in the end, the better one.
(If it helps, you may want to simply imagine yourself sitting at a table with your friends or family, and debating an issue and disagreeing with each other. You say something, then they say something in response, then you say something to finally convince them that your view is more reasonable.)
Step 1.
First, make sure you understand what the author, Sandel, argues exactly in the article “What Money Can’t Buy.” Remember, in order to agree or disagree with the author, you have to know what the author is really saying and how he defends his position.
Step 2.
Because the paper is short, please focus just on the “corruption argument”. What is the “corruption argument”? First remember that the author uses the word “corruption” in the sense of “making less valuable,” “de-valuing something”, “taking away the true meaning of something”, or “reducing the true worth of something.”
Thus, the notion of corruption in this article does NOT refer to bribery.
The essence of the argument is that selling certain things or services is immoral because it results in the destruction of the true worth of the thing being sold. For instance, selling a human being is clearly wrong, but in the context of the corruption argument selling a human being is wrong because it de-values humans; the transaction would take away the true worth of a human being; the sale turns the sold thing into a mere commodity.
Hypothetically then, even if no one is harmed physically in this transaction, or even if this transaction is voluntary, meaning even if someone wants to be sold or at least agrees to be sold, the transaction remains morally wrong because it is equivalent to treating humans as property, as objects, as something less than humans.
Here is another example to help you understand the corruption argument:
Let’s say company A rents bicycles, company B rents cars, and company C rents friends (yes friends, meaning you can go to company C and rent a friend!).
Now, why is renting a friend wrong and renting a bike or a car not wrong?
According to the corruption argument, by renting a friend, we devalue (we corrupt) the true value (the true meaning) of friendship. But when we rent a bike, it’s different. We do not devalue the true meaning of riding a bike. It’s just a bicycle. The bike does not have a “true value.”
Step 3.
Ask yourself if you actually agree with this argument. Perhaps you think that nothing has a “true value.”
Step 4.
Regardless of the side you take, as yourself how someone can disagree with you.
If you agree with the argument, ask yourself how someone can reasonably disagree with you and the author. Is there any problem with the corruption argument?
If you disagree with this argument, explain why you disagree.
Step 5.
Finally, respond to the objection in the counterargument.
Remember, you have to defend your opinion.
Again, to defend your opinion in a paper means that you will have to show how someone intelligent can reasonably disagree with you AND how you can respond to that person. This “possible” disagreement is the counterargument in your paper. Without the counterargument, your paper will be poorly defended. As a result, you can’t get a high grade for the paper even if you say numerous interesting things. Indeed, you should NOT say many different things in this paper. Focus on exploring only one specific point; focus on defending only one specific idea, not many ideas. Focus on one claim, one distinct idea. Do not write a list of reasons for which you agree/disagree.
Do you need an introduction and a conclusion?
– No. In this paper an introduction and a conclusion are not necessary. You do NOT have to reiterate your point. If you include an introduction and a conclusion in your paper, you will have to write a bit longer paper. The challenge is to defend your idea in 400 to 500 words. Writing 100 words of introduction and 100 words of conclusion would leave you with only about 200 words of your actual argument. So introduction and conclusion will not count toward the required length. You should produce 400 to 500 words of continuous reasoning without interjecting anything irrelevant to your main idea.
DO NOT say, “in conclusion” followed by what you already wrote. That would be redundant.
My suggestion is to first write a longer paper and then take out everything superfluous; cross out any redundant sentences and sentences that do not directly contribute to your argument.
Should you quote the author or summarize the reading?
– No. Quotes and summaries will not count towards the 400-500 words requirement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.