Paper Topic
Cover sheets are unnecessary.
Papers should be between 1,200 3,000 words.
Select a topic of moral significance (i.e., one that poses problems for our customary moral
beliefs and practices) to serve as the focus of a Platonic dialogue addressing this issue(s).
Compose your own lines of dialogue for your characters, giving your best presentation of your
understanding of the relevant ideas and arguments. Your dialogue must be between a minimum
of 2 characters (more characters are welcome, but unnecessarydont distract from the central
issue). Each character should represent a different position on the issue(s). For example, at a
minimum, 2 characters, one representing Kantian and the other utilitarian positions, could
debate the moral permissibility of capital punishment. Use any additional characters (who must
represent different positions) to deepen the discussion between the main characters and not to
merely introduce new principles.
Paper Guidelines
A clear and concise discussion over the topics we have covered in the
relevant unit. The discussion should focus mainly on the arguments presented in the readings:
What is the author arguing for/against? What reasons do they give to support to their position?
Do you agree or disagree with their position and/or support for it, and why? What are the
implications of holding the authors position? How does/could this relate to a real-life situation?
If you are referencing a text, you must cite the reference in your paper. You should make it
obvious to whoever is reading your paper which ideas are your own and which youve developed
or copied from other sources. Cover sheets arent necessary.
How to do well: A good paper (B-A) will answer these questions as well as give them a
philosophical analysis. This will include further thinking about the arguments, demonstrated
through an objection(s) to a position or reason, a development(s) of a position or reason, and/or
a further question(s). These points are of the same type you have been doing for the reading
responses.
In making your central argument, youll need to make your position clear and respond to the major challenges to it.
Argument Reconstruction
To reconstruct an argument, you’ll need to present it in a way that someone unfamiliar with
the material will understand. Often, this requires you to say a lot more than the philosopher
whose work you are writing about did!
Unless your professor or TA has told you otherwise, you should probably use
regular prose. In either case, keep these points in mind:
Define important terms.
Organize your ideas so that the reader can proceed logically from premises to
conclusion, step by step.
Explain each premise.
Let’s walk through an argument reconstruction.
Objections and replies
Often, after you reconstruct an argument, you’ll be asked to tell whether it is a good or a bad
argument and whether you agree or disagree with it.
Thinking of objections and examining their consequences is a way that philosophers check to
see if an argument is a good one. When you consider an objection, you test the argument to see
if it can overcome the objection. To object to an argument, you must give reasons why it is
flawed.
Try to give reasons that will be interesting and compelling to most people.
Be consistent.
Avoid overstatement. Watch out for words like “all,” “every,” “always,” “no,” “none,” and
“never”; supporting a claim that uses these words could be difficult.
Avoid the pitfalls of “seeing both sides.” Suppose you think Kant’s argument is pretty strong,
but you still disagree with his conclusion. You might be tempted to say “Kant’s argument is a
good one. I disagree with it.” This appears contradictory.
Avoid personal attacks and excessive praise.
Avoid grandiose introductions and conclusions.
Stay focused. You may be asked to concentrate closely on a small piece of text or a very
particular question.
Be careful about appealing to faith, authority, or tradition.
Be careful about definitions. Defining terms is an important part of all philosophical work, and part of your job in
writing a philosophy paper will often be thinking about how different people have defined a term.
Avoid committing any fallacies.