First, make sure to give your work a proper structure.
Start the paper with an introduction.
Briefly summarize the topic. Identify your thesis statement – what is the main claim you’ll try to support in the paper? Tell your reader. Tell your reader what you’ll try to achieve in the paper and how you’re going to proceed (this kind of introduction should begin all the papers you write in a philosophy class).
Next, carefully present and analyze Nagel’s argument. This should be the main part of the paper. Refer to the reading, to the PowerPoint, and to the questions asked in our class (1. Does our moral duty require us to be impartial? If so, how impartial should we be and how do we weigh our own self-interests against others’ interests?
2. Is morality universal? Even if it is, different people can have different motives for action which would, in turn, give them different reasons for action. If that’s the case, then there is no universal standard that guides our moral duty.)
Use citations, paraphrase the citations, discuss them, and provide references.
Remember not just to mention Nagel’s view/main claim – but to present his actual argument. Tell your reader what his claim (conclusion) is and what premises he provides in support of the conclusion.
Then, finally, apply similar reasoning to our example of hate speech.
But don’t just go with your intuition. Try to play devil’s advocate as well.
Don’t talk about your own perspective. You may think you have good reasons to avoid hate speech and that others should avoid it. But your perspective in the paper should be different.
Give a well-developed example of someone who has no interest in doing what morality requires. And who doesn’t care about how others treat him or her.
Explain: what WOULD IT MEAN for moral considerations to give a person a reason to avoid hate speech? According to Nagel, when do moral considerations give us reasons to avoid doing certain things? Refer to his view.
Then, explain what you think Nagel would answer to the question above – his answer will be your argument’s conclusion.
Construct the argument: how would the conclusion be supported? With what premises?
Finish the paper with a conclusion and a list of your references.
