You will write a 3-5 page term paper on ONE of the topics listed below.Your essay should be double-spaced using a standard 12-inch font and standard margins.Be sure that your essay addresses all the questions listed under your topic, but it should be written as an essay and not as a list of answers to the questions.You are not required to use any outside sources. Use may use your notes, the assigned text and your general understanding of the issues. If you use any quotations from our textbook, be sure to cite them appropriately. Also, if you do wind up using any outside sources (which is NOT required), be sure to cite the sources.Do not plagiarize. You must use your own words so that you can demonstrate your understanding of the topic.The paper is due by 2pm on Monday, May 9. Rough drafts are not required but they are recommended. See below for additional informationROUGH DRAFTS & EXTRA POINTS:If you turn in a complete rough draft of your paper by midnight on Wednesday, May 4, I will give you 5 extra credit points on your paper. I will also provide comments on this draft so that you can edit it before turning it in by the deadline.If you want comments but aren’t finished by 5/4, I will accept rough drafts through midnight on Friday 5/6. The draft won’t earn the extra points, but the comments will help you with your final draft.—————————————————————————————————————————————————–Normative EthicsCompare and contrast two of the three normative ethical theories we covered this semester. Be sure to include the following:Are the views consequentialist or non-consequentialist theories? Describe the difference.Which philosophers advocated the views? If there is more than one that advocated a particular view, note how their views differed.Present 1 objection to each theory.This can be an objection (disadvantage) that we discussed this semester, or your own.Be sure to fully explain the objection.Reply to the objectionWhat do you think of the objection? Is it compelling? Why or why not?Evaluate the theoriesState which theory you think has the better position. Explain why you believe that.Apply the theories to some action to help show why the theory you chose does a better job of resolving ethical dilemmas.Social/Political TheoryCompare and contrast Hobbes’ and Locke’s views about what life would be like in the state of nature. Be sure to include the following:What is the state of nature?How do their views regarding human nature inform their views about what it would be like?Why do they believe that we would join a social contract and consent to be governed? Be sure to explain what the ‘social contract’ is.Which view do you think is closer to the truth? Why?Present Mills’ criticism of social contract theoryWhat does he think is misguided about the ‘state of nature’ thought experiment?Why does he believe that the social contract is actually a racial contract? What does this mean?In what ways do we continue to see the consequences of this racial contract?Evaluate the argumentsIs social contract theory still worthwhile or is it something that should be abandoned?If it is worthwhile, how can we adjust the thought experiment to take into account Mills’ criticisms? What would that look like? If it is not worthwhile, why isn’t it? What should we do instead?Note that this is essentially the current debate regarding Critical Race Theory. If you would like to frame your evaluation of the arguments from this perspective, please do, but it is not required.ReligionPresent two of the arguments we covered this semester.You may choose two of the three arguments FOR the existence of God, or you can choose one argument FOR the existence of God and the argument we covered that denies the existence of God.Be sure to fully explain each of the premises of the arguments.Present 1 objection to each theory.Explain the objections in detail.These may be objections we discussed in class or your own objections.Reply to the objectionsHow might one respond to those objections?Which do you find more compelling- the objections or the replies? Explain.Evaluate the theoriesState which theory you believe has the better position. Explain why you believe that.If you don’t think either theory gets it quite right, say what you think the theories are missing.Free WillCompare and contrast Strawson’s Hard Determinism with Ayer’s view of Soft DeterminismExplain the views in detail.How are these views similar? How are they different?Formulate a scenario in which one might question whether or not a person is freely acting (i.e. has free will).Do not use any of the scenarios I discussed. Come up with your own.Apply each of these two theories to that scenario.Explain why Strawson would say that the person is or is not acting freely in your scenario.Explain why Ayer would say that the person is or is not acting freely in your scenario.Be clear and detailed about how they would analyze the particular situation given their theory.Evaluate the theories.Which of the two views do you find more compelling? Why?You should use your application of their theories to your case to help with this. The theory you prefer should have done a better job of demonstrating whether or not the person was free in the scenario you formulated.This part of the essay should also include any objections you have to the theory you find the least compelling and support for the one you find more compelling.If you don’t find either of the theories compelling, say why and explain your own view.