Requirements:

Correct grammar and spelling, of course

Minimum length: 3000 words (500 per section), excluding bibliography, footnotes, and header. While you may use material from your journals, this essay should be substantively new/rewritten. Do not include the questions in your essay; instead, insert a page break between each response (in most word processors, this can be done with Ctrl+Enter).

Minimum references: 3 cited quotations from at least 2 sources, per section. I expect you to favor sources provided on Blackboard, and Wikipedia or a dictionary do not count as sources for this minimum. Hint: If you feel compelled to consult Wikipedia, go to the References and External Links sections at the end of the article to find primary or secondary sources. Preferred citation style is CMS Notes & Bibliography: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html

Submission: Upload your draft to Blackboard (a single document in .docx format, titled LASTNAME_AnalyticEssay) by 11:59 PM ET on Friday, 10/12. Upload your final draft by 11:59 PM ET on Friday, 10/19.

A: Define and explain Aristotle’s conceptions of happiness, virtue, vice, and their relations. Define and explain Aristotle’s different kinds of justice.

B: Present and explain Kant’s Categorical Imperative, as opposed to hypothetical imperatives, and its relation to duty and autonomy. Explain Kant’s four examples of duties and his classification thereof.

C: Present and explain Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, including his definition of happiness. Explain why justice seems to conflict with utilitarianism, and summarize Mill’s argument that it does not, with particular attention to the different senses of ‘justice’ and the nature, and origin, of the ‘sentiment of justice.’

D: Define and explain natural law theory, including at least one supposed benefit of, and problem with, the theory. Explain how natural law theory is consistent with, but perhaps somewhat different in, at least one non-Western cultural context.

E: Define and explain legal positivism, including at least one supposed benefit of, and problem with, the theory. Be sure to discuss what legal positivism might mean as something other than a position on the relation between law and morality.

F: Define and explain [American] legal realism, including at least one supposed benefit of, and problem with, the theory. Explain how Holmes’ “bad man” argument distinguishes legal realism from legal positivism and natural law theory.