Paper #2
In Matheny’s “Utilitarianism and Animals,” he says
that we ought to abstain from eating products from factory-farms. (This would
include almost all of the beef, milk, yogurt, cheese, pork, poultry, and eggs
that you find at HEB / your average restaurant / etc.) Explain his argument for
this view. Then, offer a focused objection to it.
Your paper should be roughly 1000 words. When you’ve
finished it, upload it in the Assignments section of our TRACS site by the due
date specified on the syllabus.
2. Advice
Please forget what you know about how to write a
paper. Here’s why. You’re used to writing papers in which you say what you think and why you think
that.
I don’t want that sort of paper. I want you to write a paper in which you explain a
philosopher’s argument and then you tell me how someone
could criticize that argument. What I want you to do, and what you’re
used to doing, are very different.
This assignment is not about
your position on the issue in question. Instead, this assignment is about
teaching you two skills. The first skill is to be able to represent someone’s
reasoning in a clear, succinct way (i.e., to be able to explain an argument);
the second is to be able to evaluate that reasoning by zeroing in on one aspect
of it (i.e., to be able to offer a focused objection). For present purposes,
then, your views aren’t important. What is important
is that you demonstrate these skills.
So what you’re going to write will not look
like a paper you’d write for an English or Communications course. What follows
should clarify my expectations further. First, I’m going to go over the
structure of the paper you’re going to write. Then, I’m going to say more about
what I mean by “explain an argument” and “offer a focused objection to it.”
I’ll close with a few specific tips.
2.1. The Structure
Your paper should have the following structure:
1.
Introduction to the Paper
2.
Explanation of the Argument
a.
Introduction to the Argument
b. Premises & Conclusion of the Argument
c.
Reasons for Believing the Premises of the Argument
3. Focused Objection to the Argument
Make your life easy: use this structure to create
section headings; then, fill in the content. This will help you avoid slipping
into the wrong format.
I should say a few words about the length of each
section. Your introduction to the paper should be very brief.
A sentence will suffice; if you want to go wild, write two. But whatever you
do, don’t
waste
space on trying to draw your reader into the topic. I’m not interested in
finding out how well you can sell the issue. Just identify the argument that
you’re going to explain and give the essence of the objection that you’re going
to develop.
Your introduction to the argument should also be
brief – again, just a sentence or two. Your only task here is to situate the
argument in the context of the author’s paper. And you should present the
premises and conclusion just as I present arguments in class – as a set of
numbered statements. You’ll devote most of Section 2 to the reasons for
believing the premises of the argument.
Section 1 should be short. Sections 2 and 3 should
be roughly equal in length. And ‘roughly’ means roughly. Your explanation can
go a little longer than your objection, or vice versa. But I do not want
papers that are 10% introduction, 80% explanation, and 10% objection.
When you’ve finished your objection, just stop
writing. Don’t waste space on a conclusion. (I’m not kidding.)
2.2. On Explaining an Argument
When I ask you ‘to explain the author’s argument for
conclusion x’, I
mean two things. First, you should try to present the author’s justification
for her conclusion in this format:
1.
Premise #1
2.
Premise #2
... ßfurther
premises as needed
3.
x. ß
the
author’s conclusion
Second, you should try to tell me why the author
thinks that you should believe each premise.
It’s best to work backward here. First, identify the
main claim that the author wants to defend; you’re probably used to calling
that her thesis. But in my class, you should think of it as her conclusion,
since she gives an argument for it, and conclusions appear at the end of
arguments. In any case, once you’ve got the conclusion, go find the most general
claims that
the author makes in support of it. In other words, you’re looking for the gross
structure of her reasoning – the framework that you can use to organize
everything else. Those general claims are the premise. With those in hand,
you’re in a position to ask what reasons the author gives in favor of accepting
her premises. (Sometimes, the author clearly defends each premise. Sometimes,
she’s clear about one or two of them, but you have to reconstruct the reasoning
for the others. And sometimes, she’s banking on you assuming that
a premise is true. When that happens, just say so.)
When you’ve presented the author’s justification for
her thesis in the format above, and you’ve told me why the author thinks you
should believe each premise, then – and only then – have you explained the
author’s argument for her thesis.
Remember: I’m really slow, so you need to hold my
hand and walk me through this. Don’t assume that I’ll understand all the weird
terminology the author uses, or any theory that she’s using, or even the
logical connections between the things that she says. You’ve got to lay it all
out. Don’t trust that I’ll ‘get what you’re saying’: let me assure you, I
won’t.
2.3. On Developing a Focused Objection
When I ask you ‘to develop a focused objection to
the author’s argument for X’, what I mean is that:
•
you should be discussing one of
the premises in the author’s argument;
•
you should develop, in detail, a
problem for that premise; and
•
you should completely ignore her
conclusion.
Here’s
a brief illustration. Let’s imagine that I’d assigned a paper on abortion, and
the author’s thesis is that it’s always wrong to get an abortion. Moreover,
you’ve figured out that her argument goes like this:
1.
Fetuses are persons.
2.
All persons have a right to life.
3.
It’s always wrong to kill anything that
has a right to life.
4.
So, it’s always wrong to get an
abortion.1
Your objection should address either Premise #1, #2,
or
#3
– not
some
combination thereof. Let’s suppose that you want to concentrate on #3. Now,
your task is to tell me why a reasonable person might deny that it’s wrong to
kill anything that has a right to life. Perhaps you’ll argue that there are
clear cases of justified homicide – e.g., killing
an attacker in self-defense. And on the plausible assumption that the attacker
has a right to life, this case shows that sometimes it is morally
permissible to kill something that has a right to life. Hence, #3 is false.
Notice that you aren’t even going to mention the
bits about fetuses being persons or persons having a right to life, you’re
going to completely ignore those claims.
This is what it means to focus on one premise in the author’s argument.
Now, if I were the author,
I’d be quick to point out that a fetus is very different from a guy who’s
trying to kill you for your iPhone. So to make your criticism stick, you need
to explain why they aren’t so different;
or, you need to explain why, even though they are different,
that difference doesn’t matter. This is what it means to develop the problem in detail.
After all, the best objections
1 N.B.,
to explain
this
argument you’d need to do more than state it – as I have here. In addition,
you’d need to go through and tell me why the author believes that all fetuses
are persons, and that all persons have a right to life, and so on.
are the ones that anticipate possible replies; so,
you always need to think about why someone might not be impressed by your first
critical reaction.
Finally, notice that I haven’t said a single thing
about whether it’s ever OK to get an abortion. The purpose of this assignment
is not
to
address that question. Your primary concern is the quality of the reasons she’s
given. The task is to offer a sustained criticism of one premise in the
author’s argument – not to settle a thorny debate once and for all.
2.4. Some Final Tips2
I’ll close with a few tips about writing.
First, I’ve structured this handout so that you know
where you are in it: that’s what the headings achieve. I encourage you to do
likewise. Additionally, you should put signposts right in the text of your
paper. In other words, include some sentences that indicate what you’re going
to do next and what you’ve just done. For example:
“Let’s now consider why the author believes Premise
#2.”
“The author seems to offer two reasons for Premise #3. The first is that
....”
“The author might reply to this objection as follows...”
“It should now
be clear why, on the basis of this example, we should reject the author’s
second premise.”
These kinds of remarks make the structure of your
paper transparent to the reader. Moreover, they make it clear to your reader how you
understand the significance of what you’ve said. (N.B., try to
notice these cues when you’re reading; you’ll find that such signposts are very
helpful as you try to figure out how an author is reasoning.)
Second, be sure to use an example whenever doing so
would help clarify a point. There’s nothing like a good example to explain just
what you mean, or convince someone to accept a claim. There are many different
uses of examples in philosophy: e.g., to show that a premise is false; to show
that a conclusion wouldn’t follow from the premises, even if they were all
true; to pose a problem or puzzle; to help analyze an idea or concept; etc. You
should try to give an example whenever it would help in any of these respects.
(And in general, it’s much better to make up your own, rather than borrowing
one from the readings or class discussion.)
Third, know this: first drafts read like first
drafts, and you can do better. So write a rough draft of your paper, leave it
aside for at least a day, and then reread what you wrote. You will see lots of
ways to improve it. Now get cracking on revisions! Not only will your final
draft be better, but you’ll learn things in the process that will improve your
writing generally.
2 These
two points are adapted, with permission, from Walter Edelberg’s “Writing
Philosophy Papers.” The original is available here:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~edelberg/writing_philosophy.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment