Swamped with your writing assignments? Take the weight off your shoulder!
The essay should be double-spaced, 12pt font, and should be based on these two readings:
1. Nielsen, “Why Should I be Moral? Revisited.”
2. Aquinas, Treatise on Happiness, Question IV, Article 8: “Whether Friends are Necessary for Happiness.”
Explain what Kai Nielsen means by his question, “Why be moral?”. Explain why he thinks that, in a sense, there is no good answer to the question. As part of your answer, explain why Nielsen thinks it is wrong to say that acting morally is always in one’s self-interest, and what role Nielsen’s idea of the “classist amoralist” plays in his argument. Next, using the text from Aquinas, explain how Aquinas might disagree with Nielsen’s arguments. Finally, give your own evaluation of this imagined dispute between Nielsen and Aquinas.
I attached the two readings (the only necessary sources of this essay) as pdfs for you to read and use. Only quote from theses readings. Use evidence (by quoting and paraphrasing) from the two readings throughout the essay to make your point and build your explanations. Make sure to have sound reasoning.
Since all the evidence you will be using is from two readings and their respective authors, no in-text citations are needed. Just remember to refer to the author when necessary.