In Canada, is two-tier MRI just? Was it morally permissible for Sanders’ father to purchase a private MRI for his son? In answering this second question, assume, for the sake of argument, that two-tier MRI is unjust in Canada.

In writing this paper, be sure to define key terms, briefly explain the case of Ben and Sanders, and clearly state your thesis. (e.g., your thesis in response to question 1 could be:  “I will argue that two-tier MRI in Canada is unjust”; or “I will argue that two-tier MRI in Canada could be just in theory, but is unjust as currently practiced in Canada”; or “I will argue that two-tier MRI in Canada is just”. In response to question 2, your thesis would be either that “(On the assumption that 2-tier is unjust) I will argue that it was still morally permissible for Sanders’ father to purchase a private MRI for his son”, or “(On the assumption that 2-tier is unjust) I will argue that it was not morally permissible for Sanders’ father to purchase a private MRI for his son.”)

In addition to giving your arguments for your views, be sure to consider a spectrum of opposing views, and explain why the arguments for those views fail. For example, if you are arguing that 2-tier MRI can be just, then be sure also to consider arguments from the libertarian and egalitarian perspectives which deny that 2 tier MRI is just, and explain why they fail. Then, be sure to give a clear argument for your view.

Lastly, be sure to address the arguments, pro and con, on whether it would be wrong for Sanders’ dad to buy his son a private MRI if the two-tier system is unjust.

I recommend that you thoroughly cover the first question in your paper before moving to a discussion of the second question.

Essays should be clearly referenced (in text, author’s last name, and page number), and should draw principally on the arguments presented in the textbook.

It may be helpful to assume that you are writing for an intelligent, open-minded audience, and you are trying to argue why your view of the matter is correct or most rationally justified. Indeed, it might help to assume that your audience is slightly leaning to the opposing side, and so you will need to work hard to explain why the opposing arguments fail and why your side has the better reasons behind it. Remember to be self-critical; think of possible weak spots in your argument; raise challenges to your argument, and explain how your argument can be defended against those challenges.

Essays should be clearly referenced (in text, authors last name, and page number). Your paper should contain select, direct quotes from the assigned readings. No works cited page is needed unless you are using sources not assigned as part of the course readings.

It may be helpful to assume that you are writing for an intelligent, open-minded audience, and you are trying to argue why your view of the matter is correct or most rationally justified.

Indeed, it might help to assume that your audience is slightly leaning to the opposing side, and so you will need to work hard to explain why the opposing arguments fail and why your side has the better reasons behind it. Remember to be self-critical; think of possible weak spots in your argument; raise challenges to your argument, and explain how your argument can be defended against those challenges.

Here is a sample outline (though different formats can be equally acceptable) — it is just a suggestion for those who would like extra support:

para — introduction: Briefly explain the case of Ben and Sanders, and what two-tier MRI is, then state what views you will be defending regarding two-tier MRI in Canada, and the permissibility of Sanders using the private system if two-tier is unjust in Canada. Add a sentence or two to explain the structure of your paper.

para — an argument for some opposing view (e.g. libertarianism) (Note this may take more than one paragraph, one paragraph to explain their argument against public, and a second to explain why they think people have a moral right to access private)

para — explain why that argument fails (this may take two paragraphs; one to critique the libertarian argument against public; another to critique the libertarian argument for private)

para — explain another argument for some other opposing view (e.g. egalitarianism)

para — explain why that argument fails

para — explain your argument for your view (e.g. a Rawlsian or virtue based arg)

para — apply your view to Canada

para — give your argument for whether you think it would be morally wrong to use private, if we assume 2 tier is unjust. Be sure to develop your argument.

para – give an objection to your argument

para — respond to that objection

para — brief conclusion

(In writing this paper, I am not expecting philosophical research beyond the textbook. However, you may want to bring in other sources when discussing things like wait times in Canada vs. other modern industrialized countries, or some information about what two-tier might look in other countries, etc. This is not necessary to do, but feel free to do so, if you think it will make your paper stronger.)

Here are some other suggestions for you:

THINGS TO LOOK FOR:

1. considers opposing arguments on the topic of two-tier, in addition to their favored argument

2. demonstrates fairness (to opposing views)

3. demonstrates thoughtfulness (especially when it comes to one’s favored argument, and any problems it might face)

4. clear and concise writing 

5. clear organization — be sure paragraphs are used carefully, with each argument given in its own paragraph, each objection in its own paragraph, etc. STUDENTS SHOULD NOT PRESENT AND REJECT AN ARGUMENT IN ONE PARAGRAPH. STUDENTS SHOULD NOT RAISE 2 PROBLEMS IN 1 PARAGRAPH. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE IN ITS PROPER PLACE, SO THAT EACH IDEA IS DEVELOPED AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED

6. originality — it is always nice to see a student considering a novel argument on the topic, provided that they develop it carefully and think critically about it. But the main thing is they demonstrate familiarity with some of the major arguments in the text, and they show that they can raise direct, relevant objections to rival arguments, as well as raise tough and relevant objections to their favored argument and reply thoughtfully to them. 

7. quotes from the text. References should be in text (author last name, and page #), e.g., (Findler et al, p. 120) 

8. be sure students justify why they think their favored argument is sound. It is obviously not enough to say that I agree with so and so. 

other things…

1. Students should write their papers using the first person.

2. Students should avoid rhetorical questions, as this is frequently a poor substitute for clearly stating their points, and defending them.