In this assignment, your job is to explain and critically engage a particular philosophical position we have studied so far in the semester.
How the paper will be evaluated:
The assignment is worth 25 points.
12 points will go to evaluating your exposition of a particular position.
– Earning all 12 points will require you to be both accurate and charitable.
13 points will go to evaluating whether you offer an insightful, meaningful critique.
– Earning all 13 points will require you to say something philosophically insightful that adds something new
to the conversation that has not already been said.
As with your short papers, you’ll be graded in terms of how well you:
– represent your interlocutor’s position
– critically engage that position and argue for your own
– write with a coherent, unified voice
– polish your writing
Your papers must be informed by our class discussion and the other texts we have studied. That means, for
instance, that if you raise an objection that we defeated in class or that was decisively defeated by another author
you will not be given credit for that objection.
– You must engage and properly cite at least some of the texts we study in order to receive credit for the
assignment.
Proofread your paper. You can start to do this by reading through it several times to make sure that the sentences
sound right. Try reading it out loud so you can hear how it sounds. I will take off points for an obvious lack of
editing on your part.
– You should follow the same general instructions listed above in the short paper assignment (listed 1-7).
– You will lose 1 point for misspelling an author’s name.
Do not plagiarize. That means you should cite the text that you’re using by putting quoted sentences in quotation
marks, or by footnoting major ideas that you’re explaining.
Topics
You have three options.
1. Substantially expand and strengthen one of the papers you have already written.
2. Write a new paper in which you argue against a particular position. First, explain what that position is. Then,
explain why you think it’s false. Note that, if you like, you can engage a position and not just a particular author’s
text. So, for instance, you might argue that utilitarianism (or anthropocentrism, or biocentrism, etc.) as a position
is false. However, in general, the most straightforward type of critique you might raise is against a particular
author’s position in which you defend a negative objection to the author’s view (or part of the view).
Either way (whether you choose to object to an author’s position or a position in general) if you choose to develop
this type of critique, you should ask yourself whether you are raising a good objection to the position. To do so,
you must say something that could actually challenge it. Ask yourself whether you’re saying something that a
defender of the position could easily refute. If so, you aren’t raising a good objection.
3. Write a new paper in which you argue in favor of a particular position. First, explain what that position is.
Then, explain why you think it’s true. This option, though attractive, is tough. It’s often hard to agree with a view
and say something philosophically interesting.
You can do this in a number of ways. You might, for instance, apply the position to a particular topic in a novel
way. Or, you might shore up a position against what you take to be a strong objection to it. Regardless, you can
think of this approach as a friendly critique in which you show yourself to be an ally of a position, and either work
to further develop or defend it.
If you choose to develop this type of critique, you should ask yourself whether what you are saying actually
contributes something new to the conversation or which actually moves the conversation forward. Are you saying
something that the authors we have studied haven’t already said and that isn’t obvious or trivial?
For each type of critique, quantity does not equal quality. It is almost always better to pick two or three
objections or positive contributions and develop them fully, rather than giving lots of underdeveloped objections
or contributions. This assignment, like the whole course, is meant to encourage you to develop and exercise your
philosophical voice.
To that end, ask yourself: Are you are saying enough? Is the reader left wondering why you think what you do? If
so, you still have more to say!
Are you leaving out any important parts of the author’s position? Does your argument have any holes in it? Are
you successfully making your case?
