1. 弥尔从效益主义者的角度为言论自由辩护，请予以批判性的评论。文中至少要包含下列三点： (i) 弥尔提出何种理由来维护言论自由？(见《论自由》第二章) (ii) 这些理由与效益原则有何关联？ (iii) 你是否认为他的论证具有说服力？
2. 假设联邦最高法院法官不是根据宪法来审查管制性方面行为的法规，而是采取效益原则，则效益原则是否会允许各州采行这样的法规？或者该法规会为效益原则所排除？
3. 弥尔将快乐区分为较高与较低品质的快乐，请予以批判性的评论。文中至少要包含下列四点： (i) 此异区分的内容为何？ (ii) 这样的区分合理吗？ (iii) 边沁对弥尔的区分可能会提出何种看法？ (iv) 在评估社会及政治性措施时，此种区分是否应扮演核心角色？
   
   (译注：sexual conduct指性举止，即性方面的外部表现，包含一般理解的性行为，及性骚扰、性侵害、有性意味的身体接触等等。)

1. 根据诺齐克的说法：“自由使模式无法维持”（见指定书目，页160以下），这句话所指为何？请解释诺齐克所说的“自由”及“模式”的意义为何。他的说法是对的吗？如果不是，理由为何？如果是对的，那么“无法维持”是否足以构成放弃模式的理由？
2. 请从放任自由主义的角度，对San Antonio案中关于公共教育基金之论辩提出评论。文中必须讨论到： (i) 马歇尔大法官在反对意见中，表示不赞成生命起点平等的观念，其理由为何？ (ii) 多数意见认为应该有要求最小教育门槛的权利，其意义为何？ (iii) 放任自由主义对(i)、(ii)点可能提出什么回应？对放任自由主义而言，是否有支持最小教育门槛的理据？
3. 3. 请解释傅利曼提出的“资本家伦理”（见《资本主义与自由》第十章），并讨论傅利曼赞成“资本家伦理”而非“平等待遇”的理由。你是否认为他的说理具有说服力？

1. 根据德沃金提出的同等重要性原则及特别责任原则，讨论积极补偿行动（Adarand案）、竞选资金（Buckley案）、堕胎权（Roe案）或Okin对群体权利提出的批判性论述。文中必须包含以下两点： (i) 德沃金的原则可以成立吗？ (ii)可否以一种同时合乎上述两原则的方式来谈论积极补偿行动的问题（或竞选资金／堕胎权／弱势文化的群体权利问题）？
2. 请就罗尔斯如何论证“民主的平等”给予评价。你可以针对非正式论证的部分（及其与天赋自由、自由主义式平等间的对照），或针对原初状态的论证，二者择一。文中必须讨论到以下议题： (i) 罗尔斯认为天赋能力和社会背景都不具道德上相关性，试述其义。 (ii) 此种无相关性如何反映在差异原则上？ (iii)差异原则可否作为公平分配的合理标准？（G.A.柯亨就奖励制度不平等提出删除论证，可作为讨论题材。）
   
   (译注：罗尔斯在说明正义两原则的内容后，展开对正义原则的论证。此处的“非正式论证”系指罗尔斯针对差异原则所提出的论证。The Incentive Argument 为Ｇ.A. 柯亨在1991年5月21日及23日所发表的演讲〈Incentives, Inequality, and Community〉中所提出，原文可于 http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/cohen92.pdf下载。)

以下提供几个报告写作上的建议，请在进行第一分报告前详阅之。

1. 开门见山的点出主旨。尽量在文章一开头（譬如第一段）就指出主要论点，你可以用“本文主张……”这类的句子起头。如果你还没找到立论点，赶快动脑。
2. 焦点要集中。报告重在批判性地评估我们讨论过的理论中的一些重要面向，当你在报告开头点出文章主旨时（如第一点所示），就要一并说明这个面向为何。然后，在你提出评价意见之前，要先说明其它相关的理论面向，但不需要把整个理论一丝不露的介绍出来，重要的是这份报告关心的特定问题是什么，藉着这个问题一步一步铺陈就可以了。假设你的报告是要批判罗尔斯的差异原则，便不需提及原初状态和他如何论证原初状态中蕴含的原则。把焦点限缩在与他对公平分配的看法密切相关的那些观点上，旁及其它面向只是分散焦点。
3. 不论在报告开始、结尾删除或其它部分，避免使用笼统的陈述，如：“在人类追寻理想社会的漫长路途中，罗尔斯的正义论是近来最重要的一项进展。”或“自柏拉图以降，哲人们不断追问着正义的真谛。”或“几千年来，人们追寻着真理。”想想这句话：“哲学的基础在论理，而非修辞。”（否则何不说“人生而自由，但无往而不受束缚”？如果你是卢梭，尽可将本篇所有建议抛诸脑后。）这些修辞不会增加报告的份量，事实上反而会造成削弱的效果，因为这样会使读者对主要议题的注意力分散。更甚者，还会显示出作者不很确定自己想要表达什么，可能只是在占篇幅而已。让读者产生这类怀疑是不利的，还是开门见山，把握要点吧！
4. 表达要清晰。说起来容易做起来难，更没有速成的秘诀。但你可以从写简短的句子做起，避免长达一页的段落，注意主题转换不要太突兀。实际的作法是：如果一个句子超过（假设）五行，设法拆成几个短句；如果一个段落超过二十行，设法分成较小的几段；如果你的文章分成数个节次来谈论问题，在上下节之间最好能以一、两句话作为衔接。另外，表达事物以简洁为宜，哲学问题的写作未必要有繁复的结构、深奥的词汇、华丽的篇章，不必太爱用自创用语和多音节的长字。如果教学的主题是诗，要求自然不同，但在这门课上，写作的目的在使读者专注于你想表达的观点本身，而非用了哪些语词来表达。
5. 做到行文清晰之外，留意勿使文章太乏味或毫无修饰。花一点花思在句法的变换上，例如不要每一句都用主词开头。另外，避免被动式的句型，与其用“这款轮子是由Joe所发明的”，不如就说“Joe发明了这款轮子”。不要使用太多“It is…”或“There is…”作句子的开头，这种句型有时候是适当的，但是过度的使用会影响文章的节奏感。避免把一个又一个命题用子句的形式叠成一长串，也要避免用词的重复。
   
   “人生而自由，但无往而不受束缚。”是卢梭在《社会契约论》中的名言。原文为“L'homme est ne libre, et partout il est dans les fers.（Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.）”对 《社会契约论》有兴趣的读者，英文版全文请至http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm，法文版全文请至http://pages.globetrotter.net/pcbcr/contrat.html
   
   
6. 凡提出主张应附理由说明。在报告中处理某个人物的见解时，如果你认为他是采取某种观点，请引注相关资料（章节、文句等）来证明你有理由认为他的想法是如此。但不一定要引用原文。一般的作法是，只有在该段资料对报告本身有重要作用（例如后面的论证将会从不同角度回溯到这段资料），或虽然你认为他采取的是某种观点，但其原意是否如此仍有争议，引用原文才有其必要。我们不希望收到的报告通篇都是引用原文缀成的。
7. 严肃看待你要讨论的题材。我们要接触到的这些政治哲学家可不是等闲之辈。如果在你陈述他们的某些见解时，发现自己愈来愈像在说一些无稽之谈，你要告诉自己是误解了他们的意思（可能不是，但要预设自己是误解了）。严肃处理见解的一个方法是：自己和自己辩论。问自己现在在批评的哲学家可能会如何回应你。试着融入要讨论的概念之中；尝试去掌握概念内在的一贯性，看看自己能否了解，什么因素会使一个人采取这样的观点（况且这个人既非傻瓜，又没有精神错乱）。我们阅读的文章和著作都是经过长期、持续思索后的结晶，作者也经常将手稿复本分送他人阅览，再将对反对意见的回应纳入笔下。这并不等于说他们的想法就是对的、就真的融贯删除或就是好的，但是你会发现其深度与融贯性远超过你刚接触这些论点时得到的印象。
8. 报告写好之后，大声朗读一遍。念出来不流畅的文章读起来也不会通畅。

要做到这些要求，势必要付出时间来修订初稿。但这些工夫不会白费的。你的报告会因此变得更好，而且熟练之后，就可以一边写作一边修正了。

1. Critically assess Mill's utilitarian defense of freedom of speech. Be sure to address at the least the following three issues: (i) what reasons does Mill give (in chap. 2 of On Liberty) for protecting freedom of speech? (ii) how do those reasons connect to the principle of utility; (iii) do you find his arguments compelling?
2. Suppose that the Supreme Court justices were to use the principle of utility, not the Constitution in evaluating laws that regulate sexual conduct. Would the principle of utility permit states to adopt such laws? Or would it condemn the laws?
3. Critically assess Mill's distinction between higher and lower quality pleasures. Be sure to address at least the following points in your discussion: (i) what is the distinction? (ii) is it a reasonable distinction? (iii) how would Bentham respond to the distinction? (iv) should this distinction play a central role in assessing social and political arrangements?

1. According to Nozick, "liberty upsets patterns" (pp. 160ff.). What does the quoted phrase mean? Be sure to explain what Nozick means by “liberty” and by “patterns.” Is he right that liberty upsets patterns? If not, why not? If so, does such "upsetting" provide a sound reason for rejecting patterns?
2. Provide a libertarian assessment of the arguments in San Antonio about public funding for education. Be sure to discuss: (i) Marshall's reasons for rejecting that decision (the idea of an equal start in life); (ii) the majority idea that there may be a right to a minimum threshold of education for all; and (iii) and how a libertarian would respond to (i) and (ii). Is there a libertarian case for a minimum threshold of education for all?
3. Explain what Friedman means (in chapter 10 of Capitalism and Freedom) by the “capitalist ethic,” and discuss his reasons for endorsing it instead of “equality of treatment.” Do you find his reasoning persuasive?

1. Discuss affirmative action (Adarand), campaign finance (Buckley), abortion rights (Roe), or Okin's critical account of group rights in light of Dworkin's two principles of equal importance and special responsibility. Be sure to address at least the following issues: (i) Are Dworkin's principles plausible? (ii) Is there a way to address the issue of affirmative action (or campaign finance, or abortion, or group rights for cultural minorities) that accommodates both principles?
2. Evaluate Rawls' arguments for his conception of Democratic Equality. You may focus either on the informal argument (and the contrasts with Natural Liberty and Liberal Equality) or the original position argument. Be sure to address at least the following issues: (i) What does Rawls mean when he says that natural abilities and social background are morally irrelevant? (ii) How is that irrelevance reflected in the difference principle; (iii) Is the difference principle a reasonable standard of fair distribution? (You may want to discuss the GA Cohen argument about incentive in equalities in addressing this question.)

Here are a few suggestions about writing papers. Please read through them before you write the first paper.

1. State the main thesis of your paper at (or near) the beginning: say, in the first paragraph. It is not bad to say something like: "I will argue that ..." If you do not have a thesis, get one.
2. Stay focused. Your papers should critically assess some important aspect of one of the theories we have been discussing: the thesis of your paper, stated near the beginning (see point 1 above) will say what that aspect is. Before you get to the evaluation you will need to describe the relevant aspect(s) of the theory you are assessing. But do not try to provide a comprehensive overview of the theory. Instead, guide your presentation by the particular problems that animate your paper. For example, if you are writing in criticism of John Rawls's“difference principle,” you should not try to sketch his theory of the original position and the argument for the principle within the original position. Confine yourself to the aspects of Rawls's view that are of immediate relevance to his account of fair distribution. Anything else will be a distraction.
3. Do not lead with (or conclude with, or otherwise include) sweeping generalities: "Rawls's theory of justice is the most important recent contribution to the perennial human search for the ideal society." "Since Plato, philosophers have sought out the meaning of justice." "For thousands of years, human beings have searched for truth. “Philosophy is based on reason, not rhetoric.” (What about: “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.” If you are Rousseau, then you can break any rule that I have stated here.) Such remarks add nothing of substance; indeed, they subtract by distracting from the issues at hand. Moreover, they suggest that the writer is unsure what to say, and is looking for a way to some space. You do not want to create that suspicion. So just get right to the point.
4. Write clearly. That's easier said than done, and hard to make operational. But you can make a first step by writing short sentences, avoiding page-long paragraphs, and being careful to signal transitions. Operationally: If a sentence goes on for more than (say) 5 lines, find a way to divide it up; if a paragraph goes on for more than 20 lines, find a way to divide it up; if your paper falls into sections, make sure to include a sentence or two of connective tissue between the sections. Moreover, put things as simply as you can. Writing philosophy does not require elaborate formulations, esoteric words, purple prose, neologisms, or polysyllabophilia. In a poetry course, things would be different, but in this course, your writing should focus readers' attention on the ideas you wish to express, not to the words you have chosen to express those ideas.
5. Do not make the writing boring and clumsy, even if it is clear. Introduce some stylistic variety. For example, do not start every sentence with the subject. Moreover, stay away from passive constructions: instead of "The wheel was invented by Joe," why not: "Joe invented the wheel." Do not have too many sentences that begin “It is...” or “There is...” Though such constructions are sometimes appropriate, overusing them slows things down. Avoid long strings of propositional clauses. And try not to repeat the same words.
6. Support assertions. When you attribute views to the person whose ideas you are addressing, indicate the evidence for the attribution by noting relevant passages. But you need not include quotations. As a general rule, you should only quote a passage if the passage plays an important role in the paper (say, it is a passage that you will want to be able to refer back to at various points in the argument), or if you think that there is some controversy about whether the philosopher actually held the view that you are attributing to him or her. Do not submit a paper that strings together lots of quotations.
7. Take the views you are discussing seriously. The political philosophers we are reading are not fools. If, as you describe the relevant parts of their views, you find yourself attributing foolish views to them, assume you have misinterpreted. (Perhaps you have not. But treat “misinterpretation” as the default setting.) One strategy for taking a view seriously is to “argue against yourself:” ask yourself how the philosopher you are criticizing would respond to your criticism. Try to get “inside” the conception you are discussing; develop a sense of its internal integrity, and see if you are able to understand how someone (who is neither a moron nor a sociopath) might have come to hold the views in question. The books and articles we are reading are the product of sustained reflection, over a long period. The authors often distributed drafts of their manuscripts to other people, and then tried to incorporate responses to the objections they received. The result is not that their views are right, or genuinely coherent, or nice. But you can be sure that they have greater depth and coherence than you may suspect on first reading.
8. When you finish writing, read your paper out loud. Writing that does not sound right will not read right.

Applying these rules of thumb will require that you spend some time editing your papers after writing a first draft. But the additional time will be worth it. Your papers for this course will be better than they would otherwise be, and you will eventually start to edit as you write.