Spring 2006 Syllabus

Dan Hausman 5197 Helen C. White Hall 263-5178 dhausman@wisc.edu	Brynn Welch 5191 Helen C. White Hall 265-5597 bwelch@wisc.edu
Office Hours: Tuesday 11-12 Wednesday 2-3	Office Hours: Wednesday 12-1 Thursday 11-12

Although one cynical reaction to the world around us is to think of morality as empty words, the actions of individuals and even of whole societies are nevertheless influenced by moral judgments. Furthermore (although further cynical qualms are possible here), our moral judgments concerning actions and social policies are influenced by reasoning and argument.

This course will give us the opportunity to think deeply about five controversial and difficult moral issues: 1) surrogate motherhood, 2) abortion, 3) capital punishment, 4) gay marriage, 5) reproductive cloning. In addition, to provide some perspective and depth in our consideration of the particular issues, we shall spend some time with ethical theory.

The overall goal is to enable all members of the class to reflect on their views and through this reflection and the criticisms of others to reach better articulated and justified conclusions. This requires both cultivation of skills of argumentation and criticism and familiarity with the considerations that support different sides of these issues. More specifically the course aims:

1. To provide some solid knowledge of the moral arguments concerning the five issues we will discuss. By providing this knowledge the course should help you to develop and to deepen your own views on these matters and to see through simplistic and shallow arguments. The moral arguments you will be studying will in many cases challenge your convictions or permit you to refine them.

2. To provide an introduction to moral argument and to moral theory in general: This course should help you to see how rational argument in morality works and to appreciate the force and limits of such arguments. The course should also help you to appreciate what moral theory is, how it can be important in your life and in society in general, how it can be valid and powerful, even though not always capable of producing consensus.

3. To provide an introduction to the nature of argument and of informal logic in general: To appreciate what can be said concerning moral issues such as affirmative action, one must be able to tell the difference between good and bad arguments and one needs to be able to present and criticize arguments effectively. To the extent that this course helps you to make and criticize arguments, it should be of considerable use to you, quite apart from its particular subject matter.

4. To help you to develop your abilities to present and to criticize arguments both in discussion and, in particular, in writing: Every good essay, regardless of the subject matter, is an extended argument for some thesis or conclusion. The only thing special about philosophy essays is the extent to which one focuses upon the logic of the argument. This course should help you to write more sharply organized, focused and effective essays.

The extent to which these course goals can be achieved is, of course, largely up to you, but it is important that you appreciate what the teaching assistant and I are trying to accomplish. If you cannot see how any particular lecture or reading assignment relates to the goals of the course, please be sure to ask about it. In abstract matters it is especially important and especially difficult to be clear on what the point is. Keep asking "So what?" Since this course is much more concerned with mastering skills than with merely acquiring information, it demands your active participation, and I think that the interest and importance of the issues we will be addressing will reward that participation, too.

1. This course does not aim to provide pat answers to questions such as "Is human cloning morally permissible?" It is not a version of Sunday School. I don’t intend to preach, and if I get carried away, I hope you’ll jump on me. I have my own views concerning the issues, and in some cases, I feel confident that I've got some good answers. Yet I shall not be concerned to convert anybody. What is important in the course is conviction, intellectual honesty, and the sort of perseverance that makes one struggle to bring one's convictions and the weight of argument into accord. The course should help you rationally to make up your minds concerning surrogate motherhood, abortion, capital punishment, and affirmative action, but it will not espouse a set of "correct" positions.

2. This course does not aim to provide a thorough or precise introduction to moral theory. Although you should learn some moral theory, the subject is a deeper one than it might appear from the introductory material we will consider.

Note: Students are encouraged to discuss problems concerning the teaching of this course with the instructor and/or the TAs. If students wish to pursue a complaint with someone else, they should contact James Anderson, Assistant to the Chairperson, Philosophy Department, 5185 H.C. White Hall, 263-5162.

Both are available at the Underground Textbook Exchange, which is temporarily located in the basement of The Varsity building (401 N. Lake St.) on the Northeast corner of Lake St. and University Ave

There will be two essays, a mid-term, a half-midterm, a final examination, a small number of homework assignments and a great many five-minute essays. Your semester grade will depend on the essays (50%), the midterm (10%), the half midterm (5%), the final (20%), the homeworks (1% each, 5% of the semester grade) and the five-minute essays (1/2% each for at least 10% of the semester grade).

LECTURES AND DISCUSSION SECTIONS Attendance is technically optional, but the five-minute essays cannot be made up (barring exceptional circumstances that result in prolonged absence). That means that frequent absences will lower your grade. Intelligent contributions to discussion in lecture or section coupled with regular attendance at both will also help to boost your semester grade. I welcome questions and comments during lecture.

INTRODUCTORY PAPER The introductory essay should be no more than 1000 words in length. It is designed to give you an opportunity to try your hand at writing a philosophy essay without the anxiety of having much of your grade depend on the result. It counts for only ten percent of your grade and is due promptly at the beginning of class on Tuesday, February 21.

TERM PAPER The term paper counts for 40% of your semester grade. It should be no more than 1800 words and the first draft is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, April 11. The term paper is due early in the semester in order to make it possible for you to rewrite it and to submit a revised version. The revised version will be due on Tuesday, May 2. If you submit a revised version, your grade will be the average of your grades on the two versions.

DEBATES We will begin the consideration of each of the five issues with which this course is concerned with a debate on that issue. Each debate except the first will be the responsibility of one of the sections, and we will poll sections to find out which issues students in each section prefer to debate. Because of time constraints, I will ask for volunteers to participate in the first debate. Those who actually participate in the debates will receive a 2% semester grade credit, provided that they do a competent job in the debate. See below for further information about the debates.

EXAMS The final examination will be cumulative, with emphasis on materials that come after the midterm.

HOMEWORK There will be five assignments in the semester, most of which are designed to give you practice developing important skills. Each counts for 1% of the semester grade, and in the case of the homework essays, you will get full credit merely by completing the assignment and handing it in no more than one class late.

FIVE MINUTE ESSAYS These will be written in lecture on questions that arise out of the lectures. In most cases you will receive credit simply for doing the assignment, but I will regularly discuss some of the essays in lecture, and in that case you may earn extra credit or lose your automatic credit depending on the quality of your comment.

WARNING!! Philosophy challenges complacency. It is hard to know what the truth is concerning hard questions like the ones we will be addressing this semester.

Tuesday, January 17: Introduction: discussion of the goals, structure and requirements of the course; discussion of the notion of what is morally right and of the distinction between facts and values.

Thursday, January 19: Is morality a matter of opinion or social consensus? Two crucial presuppositions.

D. Hausman and M. McPherson, "What Are Moral Questions and How Can They Be Answered?"

D. Hausman, "Skill Sheet: Good and Bad Arguments" http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/341/skill_sheet1.htm

Thursday, January 26: Debate: Resolved that contracts whereby a surrogate mother agrees to bear and to give up a child in exchange for a fee ought to be as legally binding as is any other contract.

John Locke, Chapter 2 "Of the State of Nature" of his Second Treatise of Government J.C.S. Sorkow, Opinion in the "Baby-M" case, Katha Pollitt, "The Strange Case of Baby M," Opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court

Tuesday, January 31: Individual rights and the limits of government: Where do natural rights come from? What determines their scope? To what extent do they depend on matters of social expediency?

John Locke, Chapter 2 "Of the State of Nature" of his Second Treatise of Government

Thursday, February 2: Does permitting or banning surrogate motherhood contracts increase individual freedom? Does either policy violate individual rights? What qualms might one have about surrogacy?

J.C.S. Sorkow, Opinion in the "Baby-M" case
Katha Pollitt, "The Strange Case of Baby M"

Homework #1 due. Write a brief essay of roughly 300 words analyzing the following argument:

Provided that the parties are competent and sign voluntarily, surrogate motherhood contracts should be legally binding, because they do not call on the parties to do anything illegal. All contracts between competent individuals that are voluntarily signed and that do not call on the parties to do anything illegal should be legally binding.

Formulate this argument as logically valid and discuss whether it is sound. This homework assignment is something of a "dry run" for the introductory paper.

*Thursday, February 9: Debate #2: Resolved that abortion ought to be legal only in circumstances where continuing a pregnancy would lead to the death of the woman.

Roe v. Wade (excerpts)
Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"
Don Marquis, "Why Abortion Is Immoral"
Judith Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"
Baruch Brody, "Opposition to Abortion: A Human Rights Approach"
Immanuel Kant, "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals"

Homework #2 due. Logic practice. The homework assignment will be handed out on 2/7 and emailed.

Tuesday, February 14: On rights and persons: What is a person? Do only persons have rights? Why do persons have rights? How can we decide which rights a person has?

Read Heidi Malm, "Paid Surrogacy: Arguments and Responses." On pages 57-59 she addresses the argument that surrogate motherhood involves "baby-selling" (paying for custody and rearing rights) rather than merely a fee for the woman's services, because the money is not paid until the child is delivered. Your task is to formulate what you take to be the core of her argument precisely as a logically valid argument for a specific and relevant conclusion and then to consider whether the argument is sound. To be more specific, you will need (1) to identify a specific argument, (2) to state its conclusion precisely, (3) to reformulate this argument as a valid argument, and (4) to argue that this argument is sound or unsound.

Although there is no "formula" for writing the essay, one way to proceed is to begin by stating briefly what the issue is and why it matters -- why it seems to be the case that paid surrogacy involves "baby-selling"-- then stating Malm's argument informally along with your thesis, before turning to its careful reformulation and assessment. Be careful that your exposition of Malm's views is integrated into your argument rather than constituting a preface to it.

Essays should be approximately 1,000 words in length. Make sure that your essay is double-spaced with wide margins and that it is correct in technical matters of spelling, punctuation, and so forth. Be sure also to consult the general suggestions on paper writing near the end of the syllabus.

Thursday, February 23: What's wrong with killing a fetus? If it is prima facie wrong to kill a fetus, is abortion then impermissible?

Tuesday, February 28: : If a fetus is a person does it follow that abortion ought to be illegal?

Homework #3 on necessary and sufficient conditions. Assignment will be distributed on 2/23 and emailed.

Thursday, March 2: Discussion: What does Thomson prove? Is killing an innocent human being always impermissible?

Judith Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"
Baruch Brody, "Opposition to Abortion: A Human Rights Approach"

Tuesday, March 21: Utilitarianism: What is it? What are its implications for abortion? What arguments are there for or against utilitarianism?

Thursday, March 23: Debate: Resolved that execution is a morally permissible punishment for first-degree murder.

James Fieser, "Capital Punishment"
John Stuart Mill, "Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment"
John Rawls, "Two Concepts of Rules"
Ernest van den Haag, "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense"
Jeffrey Reiman, "Just Deserts and Just Punishments" from "Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty"

James Fieser, "Capital Punishment"
John Rawls, "Two Concepts of Rules"
start Jeffrey Reiman, "Just Deserts and Just Punishments" from "Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty"

Homework #4: Write a 300 word essay attempting to apply utilitarianism either to surrogate motherhood or abortion. Be sure that you make clear what utilitarianism says and how a utilitarian treatment of the issue differs from the way the issue was addressed in class and in the readings.

Jeffrey Reiman, "Just Deserts and Just Punishments" from "Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty"
John Stuart Mill, "Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment"
Ernest van den Haag, "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense"

In Julian Savulescu's brief essay, "Abortion, Embryo Destruction and the Future of Value Argument" (which is reproduced at the end of the course reader), the author argues that although Don Marquis shows that we have a reason not to kill fetuses in terms of the value of their futures, he has not shown that killing fetuses is the same sort of wrong as murder. In your term papers you should either develop and support Savulescu's criticism of Marquis or defend Marquis from Savulescu's criticism.

Be sure to think hard about objections to what you are trying to establish and about how to respond to them. You should read both Marquis' and Savulescu's essays at least twice, very carefully, before you start mapping out your paper. You can draw on other sources, but this is meant to be an analytical rather than a research paper. If you do use any sources, be sure to document them.

Term papers should be about 1800 words long. They should be printed double-spaced with at least 1" margins, and they should be correct in spelling, punctuation, grammar and so forth. When you cite any texts, including Savulescu's and Marquis' article or any of the assigned readings for the course, you must give references so that we can check them. Formal footnotes are not necessary. It is enough to put a reference such as "(Savulescu, p. 134)" in the text. But specific references are not optional, and your grade will be lowered if references are missing. Missing references constitute plagiarism when they result in representing someone's words or thoughts as your own.

If you have trouble with your writing, I encourage you to seek help in the writing lab. The TA and I will be happy to help you with your papers, but because you have the option of rewriting them, we will not read and comment on rough drafts.

Be sure to consult the general directions on writing philosophy papers near the end of the syllabus.

Thursday, April 13: Applications of the principle of liberty and Debate #4: Resolved that same-sex marriage should be legal.

James Q. Wilson, "Against Homosexual Marriage"
Richard Mohr, "The Case for Lesbian and Gay Marriage"
James Harold, "The Gay Marriage Controversy"
exchange between Stanley Kurtz and Jonathan Rauch (7 brief essays: "Love and Marriage," "Give Federalism a Chance," "Point of No Return," "Who's More Worthy?" "Listening Attentively," "Marriage for All," and "Radical Proposal")

Richard Mohr, "The Case for Lesbian and Gay Marriage"
James Harold, "The Gay Marriage Controversy"
Kurtz-Rauch exchange

Tuesday, April 25: Debate #5: Resolved that the reproductive cloning of human beings should be illegal.

Leon Kass, "The Wisdom of Repugnance"
Dan Brock "Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con"

Homework #5: Write a 300 word essay explaining how your views have changed on one of the issues discussed this semester. It may be that you haven't changed your mind on any of the issues, but presumably the arguments you would make have changed. If you haven't changed any of your views or any of the arguments you would make in defense of your views, you should say that and discuss instead the most serious challenge to your views you faced this semester and how you responded to it.

Dan Brock "Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con"

Optional Term Paper Revisions Due. Note that if you hand in a revised version, you need to hand in the original at the same time along with a brief description of the revisions you have made. Only substantial revisions will be graded.

At the beginning of the discussion of each of the five issues with which the course in concerned, there will a debate on a specific resolution concerning the issue. One section will be responsible for each of the issues except the first, and we will do our best to satisfy the debate preferences of the sections. To compensate participants in the debates for their efforts, they will receive a 2% semester grade credit for participation, provided that they do a competent job in the debate. During the first lecture, I will ask for volunteers to participate in the first debate on surrogate motherhood. There should be three debaters on each side. The members of the discussion section responsible for the given issue are required to read ahead, so that during the section meeting before the debate they can thrash through the issues, and select section members to present the arguments pro and con that come up in the reading and discussion. The debate team members will need to decide how to divide up and organize their presentation. If there are no volunteers in section to serve in the debate, debaters will be chosen by lot. These debates can be a lot of fun and valuable to the whole class, not just to the participants; but their success depends (of course) on you.

The format for the debates will be as follows: Each team will have ten minutes to make its case. The team-members may divide up the time or choose one or two speakers to express their position. Then the floor will be open to give and take between the two teams, and all the debaters will be expected to participate. If I think it useful, I may direct some questions to the teams at the beginning of the give-and-take session. There is no definite time limit to this second round, but I will break off the exchange at some point to permit questions and arguments from the audience.

The essays that homework assignments numbers 1, 4 and 5 call for are not meant to be polished; and, unlike the introductory and term papers, they will not be graded for style, organization, spelling, and so forth. Provided that you've done what is required, you will receive full credit; and there will be few comments on the homework papers. If the homework assignments are one class late, they will still get full credit. If they are two classes late, they will get half credit. Barring exceptional circumstances there will be no credit for homework that is more than two classes late. Though there seems little reason to plagiarize homework assignments, it has happened; and the offense is no less serious.

Discussions are difficult to manage in a large class, but with such controversial and important issues we should strive for as much as possible. Don't be surprised if I call on you during lecture. I shall interpret your choice of a seat near the back as a request to me to call on you in discussion.This is not material to be passively absorbed, and I shall try to keep you involved thinking along with me.

If my office hours, (Tuesday 11-12 and Wednesday 12-1) are not convenient, see me after class to arrange another time to meet. My job is to help you to master the skills and material with which this course is concerned, so feel free to come see me.

Email can be a great convenience, but in a large class of students, it can get out of hand. The TA will have her own guidelines, which you should be careful to respect. With respect to communicating with me, feel free to email me at dhausman@wisc.edu with any specific questions you have about assignments or requirements. If the question and answer are relevant to others, I will post them on the course discussion page. If you do not want your question posted, you should let me know. Otherwise I will assume that in emailing me, you’ve given me permission to post your question. You can send me substantive philosophical questions, too, provided that you also post them on the course discussion page. I will post my answers as well. That way I can serve as many students as possible. Some questions are not appropriate. For example, "Could you please restate the last three lectures?" And some questions are better discussed in person than over email. I’ll do the best I can to be helpful. Emails sent to me do not count toward the web discussion requirement unless you post them yourself.

Plagiarism is a serious offense. All sources and assistance used in preparing your papers must be precisely and explicitly acknowledged. If you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism, please come talk with me or with your TA. Ignorance of what constitutes plagiarism is not a defense. It is your responsibility to be sure. The web creates special risks. Cutting and pasting even a few words from a web page or paraphrasing material without a reference constitutes plagiarism. If you are not sure how to refer to something you find on the internet, you can always give the URL. It is generally better to quote than to paraphrase from material on the web, because in the absence of page numbers it can be hard to find passages that are paraphrased rather than quoted.

I am planning on employing the on-line gradebook on the Learn@UW web site, despite bizarre, annoying, and ridiculous problems with previous versions of the software, which have supposedly been fixed. (Ha!) This gradebook requires that all grades be entered in points. To keep the gradebook compact, there will not be separate columns for the five-minute essays. Instead, there will be a column in which the essay numbers that are missing or failing will be noted, and there will be a column in which to note exceptional essays. There will also be a column in which the total points from your five-minute essays for the semester will be recorded. That column will be blank until after the last class.

Even though the grades at the end of the semester are limited to A, AB, B, BC, C, D, and F, we will draw finer distinctions on particular assignments. Here is the conversion table we will use so as to record your grades on assignments in points:

On assignments where we give you letter grades, such as papers, we will record the grade as the highest number in the range. So, for example, someone who gets a B+ on their term paper and does not hand in a revision will have 17.6 points in the tp (term paper) column and 17.6 points in the tpr (term paper revision) column, because 17.6 is 88% of 20 points. Assignments that are not completed will get zero points. The table for converting total points for the semester to final letter grades is given on the Learn@UW web site.

Unlike some professors, I do not usually devote my lectures to the exposition and discussion of the readings (though I am happy to entertain questions about how my lectures relate to the readings). Although I will cite and criticize specific arguments from the readings, the lectures usually present an independent perspective on the issues. Critically engaging with the arguments in the lecture is your most important task, but you may have a hard time understanding my arguments if you do not study the readings carefully. I selected the readings to represent a variety of different perspectives, and even when the readings are mistaken, there are valuable lessons to be learned from understanding their mistakes. The examinations will ask not only that you have mastered the material in the lectures but that you be able to relate the arguments in the lectures to the arguments in the readings and to respond intelligently to questions concerning the important arguments in the readings.

Although you will not be able to understand completely the most difficult philosophical texts such as Kant's Groundwork, you should aim to master most of the readings, particularly those that address specific issues. Here are some detailed hints about how to do so:

1. Use your highlighter very sparingly. It is much more useful to pencil in marginal notes summarizing or querying specific points than to highlight passages. Actively engaging the author is much more valuable than merely trying to assimilate the prose. And if you do highlight, only highlight a small percentage of the text. (There is not much point to highlighting everything, apart from adding color to the page!)

2. The assignments are usually short, and you should plan on reading the assignments at least twice. During the first reading you should ask yourself:

b. What is the general structure of the paper? Is it a collection of separate arguments, or does it aim to make one main argument?

d. Against whom does the author take him/herself to be arguing? What is the context in which the piece was written?

f. What objections does the author address and how successful is the author in answering them?

g. How does the author's position relate to your views? To what extent does the author reinforce or challenge your views?

h. How do the author's arguments relate to the arguments developed in lecture and in other reading assignments? What criticisms would the author make of arguments developed in lecture or in other readings? To what extent is the position of the author open to criticisms made in lecture or in other readings?

During the second reading of the assignment, you should proceed more slowly and critically. Rather than asking, as suggested above, questions about what the author's purposes, organization, and argument are, you should try to assess all of these and particularly the author's arguments

1. You are expected to give references when you cite detailed claims or arguments made in the readings, and your papers should, where appropriate, show familiarity with relevant materials from the lectures or reading for the course. But you are expected to write essays, not examination answers. So don't introduce irrelevant matters to demonstrate that you have done the course readings. (But you must not ignore relevant supporting arguments and, particularly, objections in the readings.) Cite the readings only when they are relevant. Be sure that your paper is a well organized argument for some clearly articulated thesis.

2. When you quote, paraphrase, or make use of a point made by others, be sure to document the source. We are not particular about what style you use. All that matters is that your references be precise and usable. If you say that Pollitt says that contracts are worthless, it should be clear on what page Pollitt supposedly says that. The easiest way to give a reference is simply to put the source and page number in parenthesis. Papers without clear references (where needed) will be marked down.

3. Papers must be typed or printed double-spaced with wide margins (at least one inch) on all sides, so that there is plenty of room for marginal comments. Be sure to keep copies of your papers. Please do not use binders.

4. Papers for the course must be essentially correct in their "mechanical" aspects-- spelling, punctuation, grammar, typing, and so forth. Papers with more than 3 or 4 errors per page will be marked down, and if they are very messy, they will not only be penalized, but they will also be returned for correction before they are graded. Obviously spelling and typing are of no intrinsic importance, but messy papers are hard to assess; and it is not unfair to expect you to take responsibility for making sure that your papers are correct in these regards. If you have difficulty with the mechanical features of paper writing, please get someone to proofread your paper before you hand it in.

1. The paper topics are not recipes for writing your essays. You have to decide what it is that you want to maintain in your essays. Do not regard the paper topic as an essay examination question. Although your papers must be on the assigned topic, the point is to write a well-organized and unified argument for some clearly enunciated conclusion.

2. The task of writing a good essay is virtually identical with the task of thinking out a clear thesis or conclusion that you want to defend and then elaborating and defending it. You should be able to say clearly and precisely not only what your paper is about, but also what your paper maintains or shows. Be sure each of your papers has both a thesis--that it asserts something definite--and a logical organization. Once it is clear what you what to show, you will have a criterion to decide what is relevant and the basis for organizing your paper. Can you put your main point clearly in a sentence? Can you say clearly in a sentence what your paper shows or proves? Are all the parts of your paper relevant to your main point? Is the structure of your argument clear? No good essay merely summarizes things you have read and then offers your remarks or points of comparison or differences you noticed. Every acceptable essay integrates its remarks into an argument of its own. Exposition of the views of others should always be part of your argument for your thesis.

3. Note that a well-organized paper is not merely orderly. For example, a paper that argues that Thomson argues claims 1, 2, and 3 and that one can defend claim 1 as follows, claim 2 as follows, but not claim 3 is certainly orderly, and it certainly has a thesis. But it would only be well-organized--truly one paper rather than three--if the discussions of the three claims bore some relations to one another and if the paper added up to some unified and substantive statement. Please do not put section headings in your papers.

4. Avoid first paragraphs that say things such as, "First I will discuss the views of Pollitt and Sorkow. Then I will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Then I will compare their conclusions and formulate my opinion." Passages such as these make it sound as if your argument will begin only on the last page. Exposition of the views of others has to find its place within your argument, not as a preface to your argument. If you think in terms of what you want to establish, and outline your paper in terms of stages in your argument, your essay will be much stronger.

5. Try to say exactly what you mean. Pay careful attention to your language. Sentences such as "Abortion is a mistaken principle" are unacceptably careless. Value your words and use them accurately.

6. To help in organizing your thinking, you should attempt to answer the following three questions:

1. What is your thesis--that is, what is it that you are trying to maintain or show or prove? What is your main argument for your thesis?

2. What is the most important objection to or criticism of your thesis that you need to consider? Formulate that objection or criticism as an argument.

3. What is your argument in response to the objection or criticism mentioned in answer to question 2?

If you cannot answer these questions clearly and easily, then there are serious problems with your paper. Do not regard your papers as finished or acceptable until each clearly implies answers to the above questions. (But an essay is not, of course, a list of answers to any set of questions.) Taking the task of answering these questions seriously can make a big difference in the quality of your paper.

1. In a political debate, the point is to win, and one consequently tries to make the arguments of one's opponents sound as ridiculous and worthless as possible. In a philosophical debate (or in writing a philosophy essay), in contrast, the objective is to learn the truth. So you should try to make the arguments conflicting with your views as compelling as possible, before you answer them. If there are any objections to what you are maintaining that you cannot answer, then you cannot be sure that you are right. Work hard at trying to see "the other side".

2. Although many sociological and economic facts are relevant to the issues you are addressing in your essays, be careful to keep your focus philosophical. If you aren't sure whether your papers are philosophical or not, check with me or with your TA.

When working on the final versions of your essays, feel free to come to your teaching assistant or me for help. You do not need to do further research, but you can consult with us if you want references for further reading.

There are some excellent resources on the web for writing philosophy papers. I particularly recommend:

A terrific general source on writing is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. The first edition is available on the web at http://www.bartleby.com/141/

An "A" paper typically has all of the following virtues, although in exceptional cases papers with only five of the six virtues might merit an "A"

2. It shows good sense, intellectual honesty and struggle. It attempts to defend a defensible thesis and takes seriously objections to that thesis.

3. It is well-informed. If there are passages in the assigned readings for the course that are particularly relevant to the matters under discussion in the essay, these are cited and discussed. The paper shows an awareness of conceptual dis-tinctions and clarifications developed in the course.

4. It is intelligent, logical, and careful. The argument is carefully articulated and developed. Obvious difficulties are anticipated and answered, and gaps are closed.

5. It is significant. The issues discussed, although typically matters of detail, are of some importance, and their importance is made clear within the essay.

3. It is not uninformed. Where relevant, it shows awareness of the content of the course.

Grade	A+	A	A-	AB	B+	B	B-	BC	C+	C	C-	D	F
Percentage (points)	99-100	95-98	92-94	89-91	86-88	83-85	80-82	77-79	74-76	71-73	68-70	60-67	0-59