Philosophy- Ethical Reasoning paper

profileHnno
PaperCorrections.ppt
Home>Social Science homework help>Philosophy homework help>Philosophy- Ethical Reasoning paper

The Point of the Paper

Your paper is a

critical evaluation of the argument

that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.

It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.

Common Problems

  • Really a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusion
  • Did not evaluate the argument
  • Only discussed premise two, really
  • Justified Premise One, then abandoned it
  • Did not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it works
  • Justifications that simply restate the argument in more words
  • SAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!

 

For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.

Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve

(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.

Position – one sentence!

  • At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.

ARGUMENT

  • Immediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the conclusion. For example:
  •  
  • (1) If the teaching of values in schools will revive America's flagging morality, then values should be taught in schools.
  • (2) The teaching of values in schools will revive America's flagging morality.
  • (3) Therefore values should be taught in schools.

  • NOTE: THE CONCLUSION IS THE POSITION!!

Justification I – 1 of Top 3 parts

  • First, you should defend the validity of your argument. If your argument is an immediately recognizable form, you may say simply, "This argument is valid because it is in proper modus ponens (or modus tollens) form." If it is valid, but does not follow any recognizable form, then you must explain briefly why the conclusion follows from the premises. Do not explain modus ponens or modus tollens.
  •  
  • Next, carefully define all of the terms that are of any significance in your argument. Although you should feel free to start with a dictionary, be careful to define the terms as the person who gives the argument seems to mean them. Keep in mind that "terms" can mean phrases as well as individual words. For example, in the argument above you may want to define "revive America's flagging morality".

Justification - II

  • Premise 1 – this explains what the premise means, then defend its truth. Why does the antecedent imply the consequent? How is this theory (or ethical principle/standard) true? Needs “thought” evidence.
  • Premise 2 – this explains and defends Premise 2, which is usually the “factual” or “case” premise – it says something is true about the case. Needs descriptive evidence.

Objections – one per Premise

  • How could someone argue reasonably that premise one is false? Provide reasons and evidence why premise one is not true: explain and defend. Why does the antecedent NOT imply the consequent?
  • “Thought” evidence
  • How could someone argue reasonably that premise tw0 is false? Provide reasons and evidence why premise one is not true: explain and defend. Why are the claims in premise two NOT true?
  • “descriptive” evidence

ANSWERS to OBJECTIONS

  • For premise one: why does that objection fail to show that premise one is false? Aim this at the objection – explain and defend how the objection does not work. Thought evidence, again – don’t re-justify premise one.
  • For premise two: why does that objection fail to show that premise one is false? Aim this at the objection – explain and defend how the objection does not work. Descriptive evidence, again – don’t re-justify premise two.

Conclusion

  • If you agree with the argument, your conclusion will simply be a summary of your paper to this point, along with any additional thoughts or comments you may have. Don’t add justification.
  • If you disagree with the argument, you may add a few sentences here to show why the answers to your objections are incorrect, false, or wrong - these need not be paragraph length. But you will want to have the final word, and here's your chance.
  • Some people also like to add final comments here (some folks, for example, like to tell me how their thinking on the subject has grown and changed throughout the process of writing the paper). A paragraph or two is all that is needed here.