Philosophical Essay

A GUIDE TO WRITING THE PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY

JOHN D. MACREADY, PH.D.

THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF A PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY

The philosophical essay is a specific form of the academic essay in which the author

sets forth a philosophical claim—a claim regarding the perennial problems of reality,

knowledge, and values—and offers an argument in support of that claim. More specifically,

the philosophical essay is an analytical essay that takes a clear position on a philosophical

question and attempts to persuade the reader of an answer to this question by an argument

supported by evidence. The goal of the philosophical essay is, therefore, to persuade the

reader that the view taken up by the author is worthy of acceptance given the evidence

offered in the essay.

There is no standardized format for philosophical essays, but they generally follow a

four-fold structure comprised of an introduction, a body, a response to objections, and a

conclusion. Each part offers an important contribution to the development of the

argument. The introduction states the main claim and outlines the argument in support of the

claim, the body of the essay sets forth the argument in support of the claim, the response to

objections defends the main claim against counter-claims, and the conclusion draws out the

implications of the main claim. Each part contributes to the whole.

THE FOUR-FOLD STRUCTURE OF A PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY

INTRODUCTION

The introduction should introduce the topic and state the main claim of the essay. A main

claim or thesis is a single declarative statement in which you take a position on a topic that is

arguable. Introducing a philosophical topic requires clarifying the question that will be

answered by the main claim and demonstrating the relevance and importance of the

question. By demonstrating what is at stake in the question, an author can capture the

reader’s attention and persuade the reader that the answer on offer in the essay is worth

thoughtful consideration.

2

The main claim of the essay should be stated in a clear, precise, and declarative

sentence that directly answers the question raised in the introduction, and a general outline

of the argument to be presented in support of this claim should be provided to the reader.

Consider the following introduction from H.L.A. Hart’s essay “Are There Any Natural

Rights?”. Note how clear and precise his main claim is stated at the beginning of the

introduction, how he defines the key terms to be used in his argument, and how he outlines

the main points of the argument he intends to present in defense of the main claim.

“I shall advance the thesis that if there are any moral rights at all, it follows that there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free. By saying that there is this right, I mean that in the absence of certain special conditions which are consistent with the right being an equal right, any adult human being capable of choice (1) has the right to forbearance on the part of all others from the use of coercion or restraint against him save to hinder coercion or restraint and (2) is at liberty to do (i.e., is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons…. I have two reasons for describing the equal right of all men to be free as a natural right; both of them were always emphasized by the classical theorists of natural rights. (1) This right is one which all men have if they are capable of choice; they have it qua men and not only if they are members of some society or stand in some special relation to each other. (2) This right is not created or conferred by men's voluntary action; other moral rights are. Of course, it is quite obvious that my thesis is not as ambitious as the traditional theories of natural rights; for although on my view all men are equally entitled to be free in the sense explained, no man has an absolute or unconditional right to do or not to do any particular thing or to be treated in any particular way; coercion or restraint of any action may be justified in special conditions consistently with the general principle. So my argument will not show that men have any right (save the equal right of all to be free) which is ‘absolute,’ ‘indefeasible,’ or ‘imprescriptible.’ This may for many reduce the importance of my contention, but I think that the principle that all men have an equal right to be free, meager as it may seem, is probably all that the political philosophers of the liberal tradition need have claimed to support any program of action even if they have claimed more. But my contention that there is this one natural right may appear unsatisfying in another respect; it is only the conditional assertion that if there are any moral rights then there must be this one natural right. Perhaps few would now deny, as some have, that there are moral rights; for the point of that denial was usually to object to some philosophical claim as to the ‘ontological status’ of rights, and this objection is now expressed not as a denial that there are any moral rights but as a denial of some assumed logical similarity between sentences used to assert the existence of rights and other kinds of sentences. But it is still important to remember that there may be

3

codes of conduct quite properly termed moral codes (though we can of course say they are ‘imperfect’) which do not employ the notion of a right, and there is nothing contradictory or otherwise absurd in a code or morality consisting wholly of prescriptions or in a code which prescribed only what should be done for the realization of happiness or some ideal of personal perfection. Human actions in such systems would be evaluated or criticised as compliances with prescriptions or as good or bad, right or wrong, wise or foolish, fitting or unfitting, but no one in such a system would have, exercise, or claim rights, or violate or infringe them. So those who lived by such systems could not of course be committed to the recognition of the equal right of all to be free; nor, I think (and this is one respect in which the notion of a right differs from other moral notions), could any parallel argument be constructed to show that, from the bare fact that actions were recognized as ones which ought or ought not to be done, as right, wrong, good or bad, it followed that some specific kind of conduct fell under these categories.”1

In this introduction, Hart states the main claim in the first sentence: “if there are any moral rights at all, it follows that there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free.” He also defines the central term of his argument, a “right”: “By saying that there is this right, I mean that in the absence of certain special conditions which are consistent with the right being an equal right, any adult human being capable of choice (1) has the right to forbearance on the part of all others from the use of coercion or restraint against him save to hinder coercion or restraint and (2) is at liberty to do (i.e., is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons.” Finally, he provides an outline the argument that he will offer in support of the claim.

BODY

The main claim that is stated in the introduction needs to be persuasively demonstrated to the reader through a logical argument that is supported by evidence. An argument is a logically ordered series of claims that demonstrate the validity of the main claim and are supported by textual evidence that is fully explicated. It will be helpful to formulate your argument in a standard format before beginning to write your essay because the formal structure of your argument can serve as an outline for your essay.

Argument can take many forms. One of the most widely used types of argument is the deductive argument. In a deductive argument, a conclusion is deduced (Latin: deducere “to lead down from”) from premises. Deductive arguments present a series of premises (p) from which a conclusion (q) can be deduced. These kinds of arguments are valid if the conclusion follows from the premises presented and invalid if the conclusion does not follow from the premises. There are two traditional forms of deductive arguments that can

1 H.L.A. Hart, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, Philosophical Review 64, no. 2 (1955): 175-177.

4

be used to help you formulate your argument: modus ponens (“the mode of affirming: affirm p, affirm q) and modus tollens (“the mode of denying”: deny p, deny q).

MODUS PONENS

The standard format is:

If p then q p Therefore, q

The specific terms of your argument can be inserted into this standard format. If we take H.L.A. Hart’s argument presented in his introduction to “Are There Any Natural Rights?” we can put the argument in a standard deductive format in the following way:

If there are any moral rights at all, then there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free.

There are moral rights.

Therefore, all men have the equal right to be free.

To develop this argument in an essay, the distinction between moral and natural rights would need to be made clear, then evidence would need to be presented in support of the claims that there are moral rights, that these rights are natural to human beings, and that freedom is a natural right. If these premises are demonstrated by evidence, then the conclusion will be valid.

MODUS TOLLENS

The standard format of the modus tollens argument is:

If p then q Not q Therefore, not p

Again, if we take the terms of H.L.A. Hart’s argument presented in his introduction to “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, the standard format would be as follows:

If there are any moral rights at all, then there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free.

Men do not have the equal right to be free.

Therefore, there are no moral rights.

To develop this argument in an essay, the distinction between moral and natural rights would need to be made clear, then evidence would need to be presented in support of the claims that human beings do not have the equal right to be free, that freedom is not a

5

natural right of human beings, and that it follows from these premises that there are no moral rights. If these premises are demonstrated by evidence, then the conclusion will be valid.

DRAFTING THE ARGUMENT

Once you have placed your argument a standard format, you will have an outline of the argument that can be used to draft paragraphs within the essay. Each premise can serve as the focus of a paragraph or a series of paragraphs. To demonstrate that a premise is true, you will need to provide logical and textual evidence in support of the claim. To accomplish this use the following model for constructing unified, coherent, and cogent paragraphs:

1. State the premise of your argument to be defended, and how it relates to the main claim.

2. Present logical and/or textual evidence in support of the premise. 3. Fully explain and/or explicate the logical or textual evidence so that it is

clear to the reader how the evidence demonstrates the validity of the premise.

4. Draw an explicit conclusion from the logical or textual analysis presented in support of the premise.

5. Provide the reader with a transitional sentence that connects the present paragraph with the next paragraph in the essay.

Consider how Christoph Menke used this model in constructing the following paragraph from his essay, “The ‘Aporias of Human Rights’ and the ‘One Human Right’: Regarding the Coherence of Hannah Arendt’s Argument”:

“The rights to which nonmembers must have a right are those of the members of a political community—that is, the various definitions of the differently understood right(s) to equality. The right to have these rights, however, cannot be of the same order: it is not the right of members, but the right to membership: "a right to belong to some kind of organized community" (Arendt, 1949b: 30).

We know even better than Burke that all rights materialize only within a given political community, that they depend on our fellow citizens, and on a tacit guarantee that the members of a community give to each other. But we also know that apart from all so-called human rights, which change according to historical and other circumstances, there does exist one right that does not spring ‘from within the nation’ and which needs more than national guarantees: it is the right of every human being to membership in a political community. (Arendt, 1949b: 34)

According to Arendt, this ‘right to have rights’ is, as distinct from the sso-called Rights of Man,’ indeed the (‘only’) human right, ‘the one right without which no

6

other can materialize’ (Arendt, 1949b: 37). In her critique of the declarations of human rights, Arendt had said that human rights (in the plural) do not exist. The thesis that there is only one human right (in the singular) does not contradict this critique. But rather corresponds to it. ‘Critique’ here does not imply a rejection, but rather a distinction: the distinction between appearance and reality; between what is called ‘human rights’ but in fact refers to the rights of the members of a political community, and what really is a human right. Only a right that does not already presuppose the status of membership in a political community, but has this very status as its object, is a real human right.”2

Note that Menke doesn’t simply quote a text in support of his claim; he fully explicates the passage that he is employing as evidence. His explication is not merely a paraphrase of the passage; it explains the main point of the passage, and how it relates to his argument. This kind of textual analysis allows him to draw a conclusion at the end of the paragraph: “Only a right that does not already presuppose the status of membership in a political community, but has this very status as its object, is a real human right.”

It is also important to notice that Menke provides a citation for his direct and indirect references to a text. It is imperative that you provide a reference to every text you quote or refer to in your essay. These citations should be formatted according to The Chicago Manual of Style. You will find examples of how to format footnotes and bibliographic entries for journals, books, and articles within anthologies in the footnotes and bibliography of this guide.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

After presenting evidence in support of your main claim, it is important to consider possible objections to your argument. A compelling philosophical essay will raise and respond to at least one objection to the main claim of the essay. The objection can be real or hypothetical. For example, in his essay “The Nature and Value of Rights,” Joel Feinberg responds to a general objection to his claim that rights are valid claims:

“Nearly all writers maintain that there is some intimate connection between having a claim and having a right. Some identify right and claim without qualification; some define ‘right’ as justified or justifiable claim, others as recognized claim, still others as valid claim. My own preference is for the latter definition. Some writers, however, reject the identification of rights with valid claims on the ground that all claims as such are valid, so that the expression ‘valid claim’ is redundant. These writers, therefore, would identify rights with claims simpliciter. But this is a very simple confusion. All claims, to be sure, are put forward as justified, whether they are justified in fact or not. A claim conceded even by its maker to have no validity is not a claim

2 Christoph Menke, “The ‘Aporias of Human Rights’ and the ‘One Human Right’: Regarding the Coherence of Hannah Arendt’s Argument”, Social Research 74, no. 3 (Fall 2007): 748-749.

7

at all, but a mere demand. The highwayman, for example, demands his victim's money; but he hardly makes claim to it as rightfully his own…. But it does not follow from this sound point that it is redundant to qualify claims as justified (or as I prefer. valid) in the definition of a right; for it remains true that not all claims put forward as valid really are valid; and only the valid ones can be acknowledged as rights.”3

In his response, Feinberg clearly articulates the objection: “Some writers, however, reject the identification of rights with valid claims on the ground that all claims as such are valid, so that the expression ‘valid claim’ is redundant”; offers an evaluation of the defects of the objection: “But this is a very simple confusion. All claims, to be sure, are put forward as justified, whether they are justified in fact or not”—and defends his claim against the objection: “But it does not follow from this sound point that it is redundant to qualify claims as justified (or as I prefer valid) in the definition of a right; for it remains true that not all claims put forward as valid really are valid; and only the valid ones can be acknowledged as rights.” Feinberg’s response can serve as a model for raising and responding to objections.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of a philosophical essay is not the place to summarize the argument that has been presented; it is the part of the essay where the author should draw out the implications of the main claim. The conclusion should answer the question “So what?” for the reader. In the conclusion, return to the main claim stated in the introduction and consider what follows from that claim. Consider how Maurice Cranston in his essay “Are There Any Human Rights?” returns to his main claim that human rights are natural rights and draws out the implications of this claim:

“So we must conclude that Bentham was wrong; it is not nonsense
to talk about natural rights. Natural rights can be understood as universal moral rights, arising from claims man naturally makes. But of course it is not enough to just have a moral right; one wants to have that right respected. As Professor H.L.A. Hart has said, ‘Men speak of their moral rights mainly when advocating their incorporation in a legal system.’ The demand is for the translation of moral rights into positive rights.
To make this demand is not to make anything so vague and Utopian as a statement of aspirations or ideals; rather, it is to indict, in the name of justice and morality, all those authorities or powers that deny men's freedom, security, dignity, and so forth. It is inevitable that the rights of one individual will collide, from time to time, with those of another, and there may even occasionally be a conflict between the rights of the individual and the security of the state. But security in

3 Joel Feinberg, “The Nature and Value of Rights,” in The Philosophy of Human Rights, ed. Patrick Hayden (St. Paul: Paragon House, 2001), 182-183.

8

general is not something that is at odds with human rights, because it is one of the human rights. The security of each bound up with the security of all, and the private enjoyment depends on the public enjoyment. The demand for liberty and security is not the demand for two things that can only with difficulty be reconciled: it is part of two things that naturally belong together. One of the classical arguments in favor of human rights was that a free country is safer than despotism. History gives us good grounds for continuing to think that this is true.”4

In this conclusion, Cranston demonstrates that what is at stake in his main claim that human rights are natural rights is the preservation of liberty and security and a defense against tyranny. Cranston leaves the reader with a compelling reason to accept his argument. This is a satisfying conclusion to a philosophical essay.

SOURCES CITED

Cranston, Maurice. “Are There Any Human Rights?”. Daedalus 112, no. 4 (Fall 1983): 1-17.

Feinberg, Joel. “The Nature and Value of Rights.” In The Philosophy of Human Rights, Edited by Patrick Hayden, 174-186. St. Paul: Paragon House, 2001.

Hart, H.L.A. “Are There Any Natural Rights?”. Philosophical Review 64, no. 2 (1955): 175-191.

Menke, Christoph. “The ‘Aporias of Human Rights’ and the ‘One Human Right’: Regarding the Coherence of Hannah Arendt’s Argument.” Social Research 74, no. 3 (Fall 2007): 732-769.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

Bedau, Hugo. Thinking and Writing About Philosophy, Second Edition. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2002.

Booth, Wayne, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research, Third Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Crider, Scott F. The Office of Assertion: An Art of Rhetoric for the Academic Essay. Wilimington: ISI Books, 2005.

Martinich, A.P. Philosophical Writing: An Introduction, Fourth Edition. Malden: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2016.

University of Chicago Press Staff. The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments, Fourth Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2009.

4 Maurice Cranston, “Are There Any Human Rights?” Daedalus 112, no. 4 (Fall 1983): 16-17.