PHIL140
Term Paper Guidelines
Due Date:
Tuesday, Jan. 22nd at 11:59pm (papers handed in after midnight will be considered one day
late—see syllabus for guidelines on how lateness is factored into grades).
Assignment:
Compose a 1200-1600-word (about 4-5-pages in double-spaced, 12-point font) position
paper, in which you defend a moral position on treatment of non-human animals, abortion,
euthanasia/assisted suicide, or global poverty.
This is an exercise in constructing an
argument for a conclusion. You should take up a clear position on an issue we’ve discussed in class,
and construct an argument in defense of that conclusion. Below I reproduce some tips offered for
SWAs that apply here as well.
Critical analysis is a delicate (and difficult) art, and requires substantial practice. But here
are a few tips:
 Strive to give the most charitable interpretation possible of any argument you
consider. That is, if there’s any ambiguity about what exactly the target author is
arguing, go with what you take to be the most plausible version of the argument.
Critiquing a weak version of the author’s argument is generally ineffective.
 It’s not enough to say that you do or don’t agree with an argument, or to simply
state that you think the argument is a good or bad one; you must provide reasons
why you think the argument is good or bad. Similarly, saying that an argument is
“absurd,” “ludicrous,” “crazy,” “stupid,” “annoying,” or “evil,” in addition to being
uncharitable, doesn’t tell your reader anything about why you think an argument is
bad.
 When writing a piece of critical analysis, it may help to imagine yourself in
conversation with an informed, intelligent opponent, someone whose views are
directly opposed to yours, but who is reasonable and willing to be swayed by
rational arguments. (For example, such a person, we can presume, would not be
brought over to your way of thinking merely as a result of being told that you
don’t like an argument or that you think it’s absurd/stupid. Likewise if you appeal
to religious principles that your opponent does not share.) Try to anticipate what
such an opponent would think and say in response to your own arguments, and
respond accordingly.
FAQs:
Q. Do I need a references page?
A. You should cite every article/source you discuss. This may be done either through inline
citations and a references page, or using footnotes. You may use any citation style (MLA,
APA, etc.) you’re comfortable with, as long as all of the relevant information is present and
you’re consistent. Since you will have retrieved all the articles from ELMS, you can treat
them as internet sources (see http://www.laspositascollege.edu/library/cited_internet.php for
guidelines on citing internet sources). Always include a page number when quoting a work
directly. You may quote from the lecture slides if you wish (though it’s generally better not
to—try to take the ideas we’ve discussed and put them in your own words), but please cite
them if you do quote (see http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/services/ref/apa/lecture.shtml).
Q. Can I use first-person and second-person pronouns?
A. Despite what your high school English teachers may have led you to believe, using firstperson language is standard in academic writing, so there’s no need to shy away from it.
Just be sure to use first-person language as a device to lay out your position clearly, which
will serve as a jumping-off point to defending that position, rather than using first-person
language merely to report how you feel to the reader. To get a feel for this, take a look at
the Thomson article, as she provides a good example of how the first person can be used
effectively in this type of writing. Using “you” is somewhat less standard in this sort of
writing, but sometimes the impersonal “one” just sounds awkward, so just trust your
judgment: use “one” when possible, but feel free to use “you” if it sounds better.
Evaluation:
Each paper will be given a grade from 0-100, which corresponds with a letter grade as
outlined on the syllabus. Grades will be determined according to the following rubric:
Criterion
What it means
Point
value
Content-based criteria
You should articulate a clear thesis on a moral issue. Your thesis should state
whether you think a particular practice is moral or immoral, and any policy
implications you think might follow from the practice’s moral status. Your thesis
Thesis
should also state whom, among the authors we’ve read, you agree and disagree
with. Your thesis should be both clear and specific (i.e., not just “Euthanasia is a
complex moral issue with many ins and outs.”).
You should set out the views of authors who have provided arguments relevant
to your thesis. You should aim to provide not just a play-by-play of things the
authors say, but rather draw out their main theses and their main arguments for
Exegesis
them. Your own arguments will have very little resonance if your paper begins
by attributing to various authors views they don’t actually hold. (For example,
you will lose points if you claim that Peter Singer thinks everyone in the world
should have the same standard of living.)
Once you have set out the views of authors you’ll be discussing, you should lay
out the premises that you take to support your thesis. It is important that your
premises be substantially different from your thesis itself (i.e., don’t try to
Premises
construct an argument by repeating your thesis over and over again). Your
premises should be at least plausible, and you should provide evidence for any
contestable premise.
After you have laid out premises in support of your thesis, you should raise
potential objections to the arguments you make, and respond to those
Counterobjections. These can be objections represented in the course readings, or ones
you come up with yourself. You should aim to raise the best possible
arguments
counterarguments you can think of—replying to strong counterarguments
makes your own argument even stronger.
You should aim to discuss at least some premises, examples, arguments,
counterarguments, etc. beyond those that are discussed in the readings and in
Novelty
lecture. You should of course remain grounded in the material for the course,
but the best papers will integrate novel considerations as well.
There shouldn’t be any glaring holes in your discussion—that is, you should not
Completeness overlook major arguments made by authors we’ve read that are clearly relevant
to your thesis, or ignore readily-available facts.
10
15
20
10
5
10
Style-based criteria
Fluency
Organization
Your sentences should be clear and precise. Concision is also a virtue: you
should be direct and to the point, and should avoid taking longer than you need
to get a particular point across. You should aim for relatively simple sentence
structures, rather than long, convoluted sentences with half a dozen different
clauses. Punctuation, grammar, and spelling should all adhere to standards of
academic writing in English.
Good philosophy writing is more like good science writing than like good fiction
writing or poetry. Being vague, mysterious, and suggestive may be good when
you’re writing a poem or short story, but in philosophy you should aim to be as
transparent as possible. Flowery grandiloquence will add bulk to your paper
without adding substance, so keep things simple. In other words, you should aim
to make your writing about as boring as you can.
Your paper should have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Your introduction
should set out the topic you’ll be discussing and your thesis, along with a
preview of the main considerations you’ll be using in your arguments. Each
sentence and each paragraph within the body of the paper should build on what
came before: your paper should not be a random jumble of facts you take to
support your thesis. Rather, the paper should have a clear structure to it, with
each sentence and paragraph contributing to this overall structure. You should
walk the reader methodically through each of your points, always making it clear
where you are in the overall argument.
15
15