(Papers should be e-mailed to rlee@uark.edu by the deadline.)

1.	Due Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	In 1.2 (pp.3-10) Dancy lays out a range of "options." Carefully but briefly (in no more than a paragraph per) explain in your own words what each of these options is.
2.	Due Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Ross in "What Makes Right Acts Right" talks about prima facie duties and distinguishes them from other duties. Carefully explain what each of these (i.e., prima facie duties on the one hand, and non-prima facie duties on the other) are, and what the relationship between them is, on Ross's view.
3.	Due Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Do (a) or (b): (a) Dancy (on pp.25-27) lays out and critiques a view of reasons he finds expressed by Scanlon. Explain what Dancy takes Scanlon's view to be (you don't need to read Scanlon to do this). Explain Dancy's reasons for rejecting Scanlon's account. (b) Dancy talks of "“enticing reasons"” What are those (as he understands them)? Give examples. And how do these muck up the works (or not)? Explain.
4.	Due Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Dancy distinguishes favoring from enabling and intensifying. Explain these distinctions. Can they be collapsed? I.e., can we do perfectly well without distinguishing these three things? Explain.
5.	Due Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Do either (a) or (b): (a) Dancy talks in 4.4 of "Ramseyfication." What is that? How does Dancy argue that Ramseyfication can't be used to come up with a naturalist account of reasons? (b) In 5.1 Dancy distinguishes holism and atomism about reasons. Explain this distinction as Dancy sees it. He's got some example about red and blue. Explain that. Explore.
6.	Due Tuesday, October 2, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Explain the difference between "supervenience" and "resultance" on Dancy's account. Does Dancy think morality is supervenient? Does he he think it is resultant? Explain.
7.	Due Tuesday, October 9, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Roger Crisp in "Particularizing Particularism" distinguishes "explanatory reasons," "motivating reasons," "justifying reasons," and "grounding reasons." Explain what each of these are and and what the relationship is between them, as understood by Crisp.
8.	Due Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Jackson et al. in "Ethical Particularism and Patterns" offer an argument against particularlism. What is this "semantic" argument and what does it have to do with "patterns?" Explain.
9.	Due Tuesday, October 25, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Explain O'Neill's objection to particularism (as explained by Garfield in "Particularity and Principle: The Structure of Moral Knowledge").
10.	Due Tuesday, October 31, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	McNaughton and Rawling in "Unprincipled Ethics" distinguish "thick intuitionism" from "thin intuitionism" and "fat intuitionism." Explain what each of these views is, being sure not simply to define them (but do that), but also to give explanations of how they differ, examples of what such views would say, etc.
11.	Due Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Hooker claims that “particularist "won't be able in the end to give an adequate account of moral education." (p.15) Explain his argument for this (and Dancy's rebuttal).
12.	Due Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	Write up a discussion on moral particularism that will challenge the class and help you toward your term paper.
12.	Due Tuesday, November 27, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
	What, according to Dancy, is the modal status of basic moral beliefs? Explain.