Philosophy paper

Tips for Papers (Reformulated)

1. Read carefully many times, especially the place where the arguments takes place.

1. Read between the lines using class and tutorial notes.

1. Try reconstructing the arg. in writing step-by-step.

2. Double-check if the steps lead naturally to the next.

3. Double-check if some step is missing in the logic.

4. Double-check if you duplicate steps or go backwards.

5. Double-check if you put in steps that aren’t needed.

2. Talk to Prof. and TA, if there is a particular part that is confusing or unclear.

2. Get through each crucial step needed in the arg.

3. Get through the arg. in the shortest route possible.

4. Explain each crucial step in a way that is accessible to someone who is not in philosophy.

1. Remember you are trying to show that you grasp each crucial step in the arg., and also how the steps relate dialectically with the other steps and other views in the debate.

2. Use the examples to illustrate.

1. Set up an example in a neutral way.

2. Illustrate how the example is used to or may support some part of the overall arg.

3. Reread your writing multiple times while writing it.

1. Double-check that there are not ambiguities.

1. Try to reread your work in the most uncharitable way

2. See if there are different ways to read your sentences/paragraphs.

3. See if there are different conclusions given different readings of premises.

5. Critical engagement

1. Don’t repeat what is said.

2. Think of points that have not been considered that have a bearing on points in the arg.

1. If you agree with arg. A that B, think of reasons why arg. A not valid or sound, and then give reasons why those reasons aren’t compelling, or

2. think of a case that seems to support the claim that B is not true, and show why that case in fact is not conclusive evidence for the claim that B is not true.

Paper 2: Resolving Smith’s Moral Problem

3 independently plausible claims are in at least apparent tension (incompatible) with each other.

You will need to explain first what that tension is between (MP 1), (MP 2), and (MP 3).

What is the tension?

Here’s a hint:1+2 = > X, X + 3 => 🤯

You will need to explain second what are two ways to resolve the tension.

Options

a. show how the 3 claims are in fact compatible

b. show how 1 of the 3 claims is in fact implausible

i. show that 1 is false

ii. show that 2 is false

iii. show that 3 is false

You will need to argue why one way is superior to the other way.

Breakout Exercise 1 (MP 1: Moral Objectivity)

Think of reasons why (MP 1) is false.

And who thinks (MP 1) is false?

Breakout Exercise 2 (MP 2: Moral Internalism)

Think of reasons why (MP 2) is false.

And who thinks (MP 2) is false?

Breakout Exercise 3 (MP 3: Humean Motivation)

Think of reasons why (MP 3) is false.

And who thinks (MP 3) is false?