General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers

8/13/2019 General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/general-guidelines-for-writing-philosophy-papers 1/5

General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers

Clarity and straightforwardness of thought and language are crucial: avoid

flowery styles and long, superfluous introductions and conclusions. (No paper shouldever start with a sentence like: !ince the dawn of ti"e, "ankind has pondered the

#uestion of...$ %he &ulk of your paper should consist of philosophical e'position and

analysis, in plain &ut precise language. f you are writing an essay in response to an assigned essay topic, the "ost

i"portant thing is si"ply to "ake sure you answer the #uestion that was asked,

carefully and thoroughly. )void getting off on tangents that are not crucial to yourtopic, and avoid sweeping generali*ations you can+t support in the paper. n addition

to the #uality of e'position, one of the central things we look for in a philosophy

paper is how well the thesis in #uestion is supported. ven if the reader thinks so"e

of your clai"s are false, your paper can &e e'cellent if you do a solid -o& of defendingyour clai"s.

f you are asked to e'plain so"ething, do not "erely su""ari*e what an author or

lecturer has said. 'plain and illu"inate the relevant ideas or argu"ents in your own

words, as if you were trying to help a fellow student gain a deeper understanding ofthe".

)void e'cessive #uotation !tringing together #uotes is not e'plaining a positionor an argu"ent, and does not display your understanding of the "aterial. ven

paraphrasing in your own words is not enough. )gain, e'planation involves clarifying

the clai"s, &ringing out hidden assu"ptions &ehind argu"ents, noticing a"&iguitiesas they arise and nailing the" down, and so on.

n addition to careful e'planation of positions or argu"ents, so"e paper topics

ask for critical evaluation of those positions and argu"ents. )n e'a"ple of critical

evaluation of an argu"ent would &e "y lecture critici*ing %ho"son+s argu"ent forthe conclusion that a&ortions wouldn+t violate a fetus+ right to life even if it were

granted to have a full right to life. ( developed and used a distinction &etween positive and negative rights, and argued that the central parallel she appeals to in herargu"ent fails to go through, since it involves a conflation of positive and negative

rights.$ !o"e paper topics ask you to do the sa"e sort of thing, and if you+re writing

on such a topic, &e sure that this co"ponent of your paper is strong and welldeveloped.

Proofreading of papers is a necessity. !o is decent gra""ar: incoherent gra""ar

"akes the effective co""unication of ideas i"possi&le.

)s for which topic you choose: /ou should choose so"ething you+re "ostinterested in and have the "ost to say a&out. 0eware of any topic that see"s too easy:

f it see"s si"ple11like so"ething you can dash off in a few paragraphs11then that+s a

good sign that you+re not thinking deeply enough a&out it, and you should pro&a&lywrite on another topic. !o choose your topic carefully.

%his is i"portant: f you use so"eone else+s words, you have to use #uotation

"arks and cite the source in a footnote. f you don+t, it+s plagiaris", which constitutescheating and is a violation of the honor code. !ee note at top.

!a"ple !hort Paper and Co""entary



2or llustrative purposes only

!a"ple ssay 3uestion: s !ocrates+ position in the Crito, concerning the "oral authority

of the state, consistent with his view that one should never do anything that is wrong4 sit consistent with what he says, in the )pology, a&out what he would do if co""anded &y

the state to cease practicing philosophy, or a&out what he did when co""anded &y the%hirty to capture 5eon of !ala"is for e'ecution4 'plain.

(Note: page references are to a different edition than the one you have6 paragraphs should &e indented, &ut are not here due to li"itations of ht"l for"atting6 have not here

included footnotes for the sa"e reason6 and your papers should &e dou&le1spaced, rather

than single1spaced.$

!ocrates on the 7oral )uthority of the !tate

n the Crito, !ocrates "akes so"e surprisingly strong clai"s a&out the "oral authority of

the state, which "ight even see" to &e inconsistent &oth with another funda"ental clai"he "akes in the Crito and with certain clai"s he "akes in the )pology. shall argue that

although these clai"s see" to &e in so"e tension with each other, the crucial clai"sa&out the authority of the state in the Crito can plausi&ly &e interpreted in such a way as

to re"ove any real inconsistency with the other clai"s.

%he first, rather striking clai" a&out the "oral authority of the state occurs at 89& of the

Crito. !ocrates argues that, &ecause of the state+s role as a provider of security, education,and various i"portant social institutions (such as "arriage$, the citi*ens of the state are its

offspring and servants6 and fro" this he concludes that citi*ens are su&ordinate to the

state and its laws to such an e'tent that if a citi*en ever disagrees with the state+s laws or

orders, he "ust either persuade it or o&ey its orders, even if the latter a"ounts tosuffering death. %he i"plication for his own case is clear: !ocrates had tried to persuade

the court of his innocence and of the in-ustice of his e'ecution (as detailed in the)pology$, &ut he had failed6 therefore, he argues, he "ust now o&ey the court and accept

his death sentence11even though he still thinks that he is in the right on this "atter.

%he second, closely related clai", co"es only a few paragraphs later, in 89e and 8.

!ocrates there argues that &y virtue of re"aining in the state, a citi*en enters into ani"plied contract with it to o&ey its co""ands. 7ore precisely, the clai" is again that a

citi*en who has a disagree"ent with the state "ust either persuade it that it is wrong, or

else o&ey it. n the voice of the personified laws: either persuade us or do what we say

(8a$. %he i"plication, again, is that if one fails to persuade the state to change its "ind,for whatever reason, then one "ust o&ey its orders. ) citi*en has no "oral right to

continue to resist the state, even if he is convinced that he is in the right and the state is in

the wrong.

Now as "entioned a&ove, these clai"s see" directly opposed to certain other clai"s

!ocrates "akes. 7ost i"portantly, earlier in the Crito itself, !ocrates had stressed that

one "ust never do wrong (;<&$. ndeed, this serves as the driving principle &ehind the





un-ust, such as rendering so"e political service$.

f the passages are read in this way, we can interpret !ocrates+ clai" as ii a&ove. When he

says that one "ust o&ey the state+s final laws and orders, what he "eans is that one "ustdo anything it tells one to do within the &ounds of -ustice, and that one "ust endure

anything it tells one to endure. %hus, !ocrates was not o&ligated to capture 5eon of!ala"is, and would not &e o&ligated to cease philosophi*ing if ordered to, since that

would &e doing so"ething wrong (i.e. so"ething that is not within the &ounds of -ustice$6 &ut he is o&ligated to accept and endure his punish"ent, as long as it was arrived at

through proper -udicial procedures. %he latter is true, according to !ocrates, even though

the punish"ent is wrong6 for &y suffering it, he is not hi"self doing anything wrong, &utonly enduring so"ething wrong. %his is perfectly consistent with !ocrates+ e'hortation

never to doanything wrong.

%hus, what at first appears to &e a &latant contradiction a"ong !ocrates+ various clai"s is

fairly easily re"edied if we interpret the relevant passages in the Crito as "aking the

clai" in ii rather than the clai" in i a&ove. %his interpretation is supported not only &ythe fact that it helps to reconcile !ocrates+ see"ingly contradictory clai"s, &ut also &y the

fact that !ocrates+ e'a"ples of o&edience to the state over one+s own o&-ections allinvolve having to endure so"ething, rather than having to do so"ething. ?e speaks in

Crito 89&, for e'a"ple, of having to endure in silence whatever it instructs you to

endure, whether &lows or &onds, and if it leads you into war to &e wounded or killed, you"ust o&ey. %hough he does not e'plicitly for"ulate his clai" as in ii a&ove, his focus is

clearly on the issue of having to endure so"ething prescri&ed &y the state, over one+s own

o&-ections. %herefore, it is consistent with the te't to interpret hi" as "aking only the

clai" in ii, which is fully co"pati&le with his clai" that one "ust never do wrong, andwith his clai" that under certain conditions one should refuse todo so"ething the state

orders (such as refusing to capture so"eone for an un-ust e'ecution, or refusing to ceasecarrying out your divine "ission as long as you live$.

)s for the plausi&ility of !ocrates+ view, &elieve that it is still overly de"anding, even

when #ualified as in ii a&ove. t+s unclear why any of the factors !ocrates "entioned

should give the state such overriding "oral authority that one should &e "orally o&liged

to endure e'ecution without resistance even in cases where the state is genuinely in thewrong. t see"s "ore plausi&le to hold that if one stands to &e un-ustly e'ecuted, one can

rightly resist this punish"ent (even if it would e#ually &e per"issi&le not to resist$. @ne

could do this, think, without showing any conte"pt for the laws, or challenging theirauthority, since one still grants the state+s authority to do its &est to carry out the

punish"ent, and si"ply asserts a "oral right to do one+s &est in turn to avoid such

wrongful punish"ent. 0ut that+s a topic for another paper.

C@77N%)A/:

Note, first of all, the concise, crisp introduction. %he pro&le" is plainly stated, and then

e'plain clearly what +" going to do in the paper11all in -ust a few sentences. %here+s no

ra"&ling introduction with sentences starting with !ince the &eginning of ti"e, "ankind



has pondered the "ysteries of etc.

%he style is straightforward, striving for clarity rather than literary flair. =argon is avoided

as far as possi&le.

)fter the introduction, the pro&le" is stated in "ore depth and detail, with te'tualreferences. Notice the spare use of #uotes. #uote only a few words here and there, where

necessary to illustrate the points. %his "ight &e e'tended to a few sentences, if necessary,

&ut &eware of over1#uoting and letting so"eone else+s words do your work for you. (%heworst "istake is -ust stringing together #uotes, which acco"plishes nothing.$ Notice also

that te'tual references are given for the #uotes, as well as for paraphrased passages.

(Nor"ally, +d use footnotes and have co"plete citations, &ut +" li"ited &y ht"l for"athere.$

Notice how, in descri&ing the pro&le", try to elucidate it, rather than -ust su""ari*ing

it. !u""ary is not e'planation. nstead, try to "ake clear where e'actly the tensions

a"ong the various clai"s see" to arise andwhy, and how they apply to !ocrates+ owncase. +ve tried to go well &eyond the superficial state"ent of the pro&le" in the essay

#uestion, to illu"inate and develop it.

Now having done that, one "ight -ust stop and clai" to have answered the #uestion: No,

the various positions are not consistent, and !ocrates is -ust contradicting hi"self. 0utthat would &e a very superficial paper. nstead, tried to dig &eneath the surface a little

&it, and to notice that the central clai" can &e interpreted in "ore than one way. !o first

of all "ade a distinction &etween two possi&le interpretations, which in turn depended ona distinction &etween what you "ight &e co""anded to do and what you "ight &e

co""anded to endure. %hat distinction ena&led "e to argue for an interpretation of what

!ocrates is clai"ing a&out the "oral authority of the state that renders this clai"consistent with his other clai"s. (Noticing and e'ploiting distinctions is a large part ofwhat doing philosophy is all a&out.$

Whether or not you agree with that particular argu"ent, you can see the difference

&etween &ringing the discussion to that level of detail and "erely staying on the surface.

!o even if you would have taken a different position, the point is that a good paper wouldstill &e engaging with the issues at that level of depth, rather than re"aining on the

surface. f you think !ocrates really is contradicting hi"self, for e'a"ple, you "ight then

also discuss the distinctions pointed out, &ut then argue for an interpretation along thelines of the first interpretation instead, despite the inconsistencies with other things he

says. (@f course, you+d have to &e a&le to give an argu"ent for why the te't should &e

understood in that way, despite the fact that !ocrates winds up with rather glaringlyconflicting clai"s on that reading.$

)gain, notice that a" striving for clarity, precision and thoroughness, along with a

straightforward organi*ation for the paper.

Documents

General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers