Writing Assignment #2PHIL 2306—Introduction to EthicsDue on Sunday, February 28, 2020The firstwriting assignment involves an analysis of the article on the topic of criminal punishment; this article is written by William Shaw, and it is posted in the course as a PDF document.You will read this article, complete a reading quiz (which can be taken twice, and the highest grade will be counted), and write a five-paragraphpaper (as outlined below) which will be submitted through Moodle.This paper should be prepared in Microsoft Word according to MLA formatting guidelines; a template has been provided for you. If you choose not to utilize the template, information on MLA formatting is posted in the course. You will be graded on the content of your paper, of course, but a portion of the grade will be assigned based on correctly naming the file that you submit, submitting the paper correctly, formatting the paper correctly, and the mechanics of writing. A grading rubric has been posted with the assignment, to show you how your grade will be determined.When you are preparing your paper, you will assign a file name when you save it on your computer. The file name needs to be correct—so that when you upload your paper, it will be distinguishable from the papers submitted by the other students. The correct file name is:W2LastName FirstNamewhere “LastName” is replaced by your last name and “FirstName” is replaced by your first name (this should be your first name as it appears on my class roster—and thisshould match the first name that you put on the first line of the heading within the paper itself).There are videos posted with the assignment, as well. You are strongly encouraged to view these videos. They contain information about the writing assignments for the course—but also contain helpful information related to the article you are reading for this secondwriting assignment.This paper should consist of fiveparagraphs (which areoutlined below). Remember that each paragraph should contain at least 2 substantive sentences and is expected to be 5-8 sentences in length. Additionally, note that I am asking specific questions, indicating exactly what you should be explaining in each of your fiveparagraphs.Make sure that you answer the questions that have been asked.1) In the first paragraph, you should clearly explain why Dr. Shaw claims that utilitarianism is the best moral perspective to use when thinking about the criminal law. What features of utilitarianism make it the best? What are some of the things that utilitarianism can take into consideration that other moral perspectives might overlook, according to Dr. Shaw?
2) In the second paragraph, you should clearly explain the two things that allow us to justify a punishment from the utilitarian perspective. Make sure you do not simply state these; explain them. This is where you demonstrate your understanding of how utilitarianism works.

3) In the third paragraph, you should explain the different types of benefits that we seek when we punish a criminal. Some of these may be benefits that we seek as a society; others may be benefits that we hope will be realized by the punished criminal; still others might be benefits that we are hoping that others might gain when we punish a criminal. Again, do not simply list these; put the ideas in your own words and explain the benefits and why they are valuable.4) In your fourthparagraph, summarize the reasons that Dr. Shaw claims that utilitarians would be in favor of alternative forms of punishment. What is it about utilitarian theory that makes it open to this suggestion? What sortsof alternative punishments might utilitarians be willing to explore, and (most importantly) why?5) In your final paragraph, assess the claim that Dr. Shaw has made regarding alternative forms of punishment. Is he right that utilitarians should be open to such an approach? That is, based on normative, philosophical reasons, why is it that utilitarians should or should not agree with what Dr. Shaw has suggested?Are there other (normative and philosophical) reasons, not necessarily based on utilitarian thinking, that would support or refute this claim?Notice that this paper does not ask for your opinion on the topic of criminal punishment. It does, however, askyou to clearly listen to the arguments presented by the author, and to explain those arguments (to show that you understand them). The goal is to be fair and objective in summarizing and assessing the claims which have been made by the author.When you are asked to state agreement or disagreement with the author’s claims(in the last paragraph), you are asked to provide normative reasons to support your conclusion. That is, you are being asked to “do philosophy.” The goal is not simply to state your agreement or disagreement—but to assess whether the author is saying something that is accurate.(He could be right, even if you don’t happen to like the idea!)The reasons that you offer should be normative—they should be objective reasons with which thinking people should agree.Also remember that the goal is to explain—not to merely report what the author has said. Don’t just tell me what the author said; explain why he said it, and explain what he meant by saying those things. The goal is to explain the author’s ideas, in your own words, as you would explain it to someone who has not read the article. Ideally, you would not quote from the article; demonstrate your understanding by explaining in your own words. If you do feel that you need to quote, a brief quote or two is acceptable, as long as the quote is placed in quotation marks and a page number is correctly cited.If you have any questions about this assignment, please do not hesitate to ask.