philosophy essay editing

Due: Monday night, December 10th, any time before midnight on Pilot website

Weight: 35% of course grade, minimum: 1400 words, maximum: 1600 words

Format: Double-spaced pages (except single-spaced header), 1-inch margins, 12-point font

Outlines and drafts (optional): if you want to submit a draft, you must first submit an outline by Friday, November 30th. Drafts must be emailed by Friday, December 7th.

Outline format: following the “Essay Structure” below, summarize each point in one sentence, leaving out the introduction and conclusion. Email it in the body of the message, not as an attachment.

Note: there will be penalty of one partial letter grade (e.g., A to A-) for each of the following:

- Essay is over or under the required length

- Failure to use regular but brief quotations (on average, about 2-3 per page)

- Failure to cite page number of quotations and to cite the book or source in footnote or endnote

Essay Structure

For each topic, you will choose either to critique or defend the argument.

Note: it’s okay if your topic is similar to the examples, just add original arguments and examples in 5-6.

In a critical essay, the structure is: Example: Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”

1. Introductory paragraph (Briefly state the key points in 2-5 below)

2. Author’s argument The right to life doesn’t include use of another’s body

3. Your criticism of author’s argument Voluntarily risking pregnancy grants that right

4. The author’s reply to your criticism Leaving window open doesn’t grant burglar a right to stay

5. Your answer to author’s reply The burglar analogy fails because… [your argument]

6. Concluding paragraph (Clearly state conclusion, briefly review arguments 4-5)

But in the defense essay option, you have to add a step—an initial criticism to defend the view from:

1. Introductory paragraph (Briefly state the key points in 2-6 below)

2. Author’s argument The right to life doesn’t include use of another’s body

3. A possible criticism of author Voluntarily risking pregnancy grants that right

4. Your defense of author from criticism Leaving window open doesn’t grant burglar a right to stay

5. A possible objection to your defense The burglar analogy fails because… [critic’s argument]

6. Your reply to the critical objection The analogy works or can be adjusted… [your argument]

7. Concluding paragraph (Clearly state conclusion, briefly review arguments 4-6)

This essay is much longer, so plan ahead and use the extra space well. To do this:

· Use a bit more quotation, quoting more frequently and using longer (but still brief) quotes.

· Explain arguments in much more detail, explicitly spelling out each step in the reasoning. For each key claim, ask yourself if a skeptical reader will ask, “Why should I believe this is true?” Then be sure you have answered that question in your explanation.

· Quote and discuss passages from the readings that we did not discuss in class.

· Use a single example, but explained in detail, to illustrate arguments whenever helpful.

General advice: in this essay, good grammar and punctuation will count more than in previous essays. When critically discussing the views, be sure to add something new—a new argument, example, or variation of an example—that the author has not already included in the article. Remember to use regular brief quotations (2-3 per page) to support your interpretation, cite the source in a footnote or endnote, and clearly explain the reasoning behind the views.

Note: you may write on a different topic than suggested here, provided you email your topic idea to me at least one full week before the deadline and the reading is from the final third of the semester.

Choose only one main topic (1, 2, or 3) and only one sub-topic, if offered (A or B):

1. Explain, then either critique or defend, Friedrich Nietzsche’s argument in Twilight of the Idols that “almost every morality that has been taught, revered, or preached so far, explicitly turns its back on the instincts of life” (174). Focus on pages 172-174, sections 1-4.

When explaining his argument, clarify why he thinks traditional morality’s cure for passions is “eradication” (172) and why it’s harmful, using additional examples that might support his view. Also explain what he means when he says that passions can be “spiritualized, beautified, deified,” again considering specific examples (172).

Explain in detail and directly answer at least one possible objection your opponent might make to your critique or defense. When replying to your opponent, directly respond to their argument and fully explain any specific examples they have raised.

2. Explain, then critique or defend, one of the following arguments in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” For both, include an explanation of her violinist analogy (188), and her argument that the right to life does not include the use of another’s body (192-194).

A. Abortion is permissible when it’s to save the mother’s life, since it’s self-defense (189-191).

B. Voluntarily risking pregnancy doesn’t grant the fetus a right to use one’s body (194-195).

Explain and directly answer at least one possible objection your opponent might make to your critique or defense. Be sure to add something new to what the author has said—a new argument, a new example, or a new variation on her example.

3. Explain, then critique or defend, Peter Singer’s argument in “All Animals are Equal” that we should give equal moral consideration to the interests of animals capable of pleasure or suffering. Focus on pages 281-284.

When explaining his argument, clarify why he thinks we shouldn’t base concern for others on “what abilities they possess” (281), and why he thinks any creature with “the capacity for suffering and enjoying” deserves equal consideration (282).

Explain and directly answer at least one possible objection your opponent might make to your critique or defense, focusing on one specific example of animal inequality that he mentions, such as eating meat, factory farming, or animal experimentation (283-284). When replying to your opponent, directly respond to their argument and directly explain any specific examples they have raised.

Quotation and Citation Format

After the first quotation only, place a superscript numeral referring the reader to a footnote (at the bottom of the page) or an endnote (at end of essay) with the source and publication information. You can add superscript numerals either by using the “Insert” and “Footnote” tabs or by selecting “superscript” in the “Format” and “Font” tabs. For all quotations just include the page numbers in parentheses at the end of the sentence, before the final punctuation mark.

Example: Descartes warns, “Never…trust entirely those who have once deceived us” (p. 292).1

Example of endnote for articles from the course textbook:

1. All quotations are from Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal,” in Philosophy:

Basic Readings, ed. Nigel Warburton (Oxon: Routledge, 2005), pp. 277-87.

Example of endnote for articles downloaded from Pilot:

1. All quotations are from Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, PHL 2050-01

Course Handout, Wright State University, Spring 2018.

General Advice

A good philosophy paper is about how, not what, you think. It’s not about your conclusions but your method. The goal isn’t to win the argument, refute the author, or have most original or correct view, but rather to present your thoughts in a careful, well-reasoned, and thoughtful way.

Good style is clear, direct, and to the point. Don’t try to “sound smart.” You don’t need to reach for the biggest words and most complicated sentences. Your style should be natural, based in the way you really speak, but just a little bit more formal and polished. Your main goal is to communicate the ideas clearly and effectively.

Write for a general audience that isn’t directly familiar with the readings, so that you have to introduce and teach the ideas to them. Also write for a skeptical audience. Imagine the readers are on your opponent’s side, so you have to carefully persuade them to agree with your claims.

Grading Criteria

Format: Carefully follows instructions about essay’s topic, structure, and format.

Style: Good grammar, punctuation, spelling. Avoids awkward phrasing and sentence structure.

Clarity: Good organization, ideas clearly expressed and well-explained with original examples.

Reasoning: Argument’s target is clear, proceeds in logical steps, reasons are explicit, stays on topic

Essays are graded as a whole, not by adding or subtracting points, so each case is unique. However, based on the above criteria, the following is a good rule of thumb:

‘A-’ to ‘A+’ = Excellent to Extraordinary: excellent to good in most criteria, poor in none

‘B-’ to ‘B+’ = Good to Very Good: good to adequate in most criteria, poor in none

‘C-’ to ‘C+’ = Acceptable: adequate in most criteria, poor in at least one

‘D-’ to ‘D+’ = Inadequate: poor in multiple criteria, very poor in some