essay （philosophy）

1

Paper Structure & Other Tips Philosophy papers almost always have two parts: exposition and critical analysis. ‘To exposit’ means to explain or describe something. You always want to begin by explaining the issue or topic that is the focus of your paper. The expository part of your paper can also involve explaining what other influential people have said about the topic of your paper. After you’ve sufficiently explained your topic, and what others have said about it, you then want to provide a critical analysis. ‘Critical analysis’ here just means providing your own critical perspective on the topic. This critical part of your paper will involve developing your own argument(s). In the structure just below, sections I-III are expository; sections IV-V involve critical analysis. There is no single, correct way to write a philosophy paper. Here’s how I would recommend structuring your paper [the numbers in the brackets are roughly how long each section should be]: ------------------------------------ I. Introduction [0.5 page]

A. Set up the topic. Describe the university’s proposed policy. You can add some details to the policy as you see fit—just make sure not to stray too far from the proposal in the prompt. B. Thesis statement. Be sure to include a thesis statement in the Introduction. A thesis statement is the main point you’ll be arguing in your paper. For example, you might say: “In this paper, I will argue that the university’s proposed policy is completely unacceptable,” or “In this paper, I’ll argue in support of the university’s proposal.” You shouldn’t start discussing the details of your view in your thesis statement—save that for later in your essay. Just state what position you will be taking on the proposed policy.

II. Peter Singer’s View [.75 page]

A. Explain Singer’s view on helping those in need (using his article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”). B. Then state explicitly whether Singer would agree with the university’s proposed policy.

III. Garrett Hardin’s View [.75 page]

A. Explain Hardin’s view on helping those in need (using his article “Lifeboat Ethics”). B. Then state explicitly whether Hardin would agree with the university’s proposed policy.

2

IV. Your Own View [1 page] A. Explain your own view on helping those need. Here, speak more generally about whether you believe that affluent people have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. In other words, put aside the university’s proposed policy for a moment; just talk about your beliefs about helping people in need. If you think people that are well-to-do have an obligation to help, why and to what extent (how much)? Should the well-to-do help because it’s necessary for a smooth, well-functioning society? Or because wealth is often the result of luck (such as which socio- economic class you’re born into)? Or because helping the less fortunate is God’s will? And should the affluent donate a large portion of their wealth or just a small fraction? Or perhaps you think the well-to-do should not help those in need because charity creates laziness, or because helping is detrimental to society in some way? This part of the paper is wide open. You can argue for whatever view you want. Just remember that your goal is to persuade others that your view is reasonable. So be sure you’re providing support for your claims. If you say, for instance, that charity creates laziness, you must support the claim with evidence. And bear in mind that anecdotal evidence is weak. (For example: “I think charity creates laziness because my neighbor Bob gets his food at a food bank and he does nothing but sit around smoking weed all day.” Whether this is true about Bob, it doesn’t provide much support for the general claim that charity creates laziness. So try to avoid anecdotes like this in your paper.) Whatever view you take up in this section, be sure you spend enough time defending it. One common mistake I see students make here is a lack of detail and support (evidence). B. Then state explicitly whether you agree with the university’s proposed policy. This should be fairly easy once you’ve explained your view on donating to charity above.

V. Objections [1 page]

A. Raise and respond to objections to your view on helping those in need. Imagine what your opponents will say about your view. How will they criticize it? Carefully explain and respond to criticisms of your view in section IV.A. It’s up to you how many criticisms you discuss—you might discuss one major criticism, or you might discuss two criticisms. Whatever you do, only discuss the strongest criticisms you can imagine. Don’t waste your time on weak criticisms—the paper is too short to mess around with bullsh*t. (The problem with discussing a weak objection in a short paper like this is that you’ll be omitting a discussion of a stronger objection that provides a more serious threat to your view. And this results in a weaker overall paper.)

3

Other Tips & Advice

 Don’t include a conclusion paragraph. Once you finish discussing objections in section V, you can stop writing. A conclusion is unnecessary in such a short paper.

 Give your paper a title.  Feel free to write in the first-person. Philosophers normally write using the word “I” (e.g., “I

think that blah blah blah”).  Write clearly! It’s difficult to convince your readers that your view is reasonable if it’s unclear

what your view even is!  Label the sections of your paper. It’s up to you how you do it, but title your sections such as:

Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Singer on Helping the Poor And so on…

 Using examples to illustrate your point(s) can be very helpful. Sometimes making a philosophical point is difficult. But using simple examples that capture your point can be a big help.

 Number your pages.  Since we’re only using two articles and any notes I’ve posted on Blackboard, there’s no need

for a Bibliography or Works Cited page at the end. Only include a Bibliography if you’re using any outside sources. But outside sources are not necessary for this assignment.

 Stay away from directly quoting Singer and Hardin. Put their points in your own words.  You can cite information any way you like, just make sure you’re being clear. It’s probably

easiest just to place a page number in parentheses at the end of a sentence. For example: “According to Singer, the U.S. gives less than 0.7% of its gross national product to combat world poverty (p. 5).”

 A good philosophy paper is one that makes a contribution to our understanding. What I mean by that is, a good paper will be one that doesn’t simply repeat what others have already said—but rather it says something new and interesting. The place for saying something new and interesting is in sections IV and V (critical analysis). Be creative!