Essay 1: Assignment Topics and Instructions
NB: Before starting your essay, you should read this entire document as
well as the information in the ‘Essay Assignments: Grading Criteria and
Helpful Information’ folder. Among other information, it contains a sample
of an ‘A’ paper to use as a model for your essay.
For this assignment, you will choose one of the three topics below and write an
essay of at least 4 pages, double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 point font;
your paper should be written in Standard English and done in MLA format. You
must include a MLA works cited page that includes all sources used in your
essay, including the article related to the topic you choose.
To submit your paper, click on ‘Essay 1.’ You should attach a file that can be
opened with Microsoft Word (doc or docx); do not submit a pdf or type in the
submission box.
Any instance of plagiarism will be punished by a minimum of an F on the
assignment and a report to the associate dean of the humanities division.
Further punishment could include failure in the course, suspension, or
expulsion.
The articles given below as topics are all from The New York Times. Nonsubscribers are limited to the number of articles they can read, but the Richland
Library has full access to The New York Times. You can access The New York
Times via this DCCCD Library web page.
Topic #1: “A Philosopher on Brain Rest”
This article relates to personal identity.
Topic #2: “Philosophy—What’s the Use?”
This article deals with whether studying philosophy does in fact help us lead
meaningful lives, whether philosophy achieves a purpose in this regard,
whether it makes our lives better.
Topic #3: “What Is College for?”
This article deals with the purpose of education, as well as the obligation
colleges and college professors have in relation to this purpose. It also deals
with the relationship between higher education and the betterment of the
individual and society.
Topic #4: “We Are Not Born Human”
The above relates to personal identity/what being human might mean or not
mean.
After choosing an article/topic to write about, you should choose one of the
philosophical questions from the list of questions included with the assignment
handouts. The question should be one that you think relates to the article/topic
you choose. The focus of your essay will be an analysis of the philosophical
question you choose from the list. Please note! Do not simply choose any
question on the list; you should choose a question that you think relates to
the article/topic you choose. In your essay, you will need to explain how
the question relates to the article/topic.
NB: Very often, I read essays for this assignment that do not even mention,
let alone discuss, any philosophers or philosophical concepts/theories. Just
as you cannot write an essay about, say, the American Civil War without
ever mentioning the war, you cannot write a philosophy essay without
discussing philosophers and philosophical concepts/theories. Your essay
should be explicitly about philosophy, specifically the question you are
analyzing, from beginning to end.
Your essay should follow the below outline and should include the
following:
A heading done according to MLA
An original title (hint: ‘Essay 1’ is not an original title; nor is the title of the
article you choose to write on)
First Paragraph: Introduction
In the introduction, you should set up the topic of your essay in a way that
engages your reader. Since the essay is an analysis of a philosophical question,
your introduction should convey this; your introduction should contain your
thesis (if you are unsure of how to write a thesis, read this advice on developing
a thesis), should let the reader know the philosophical question you intend to
analyze, and should mention the article you are writing about (the article
related to the topic you choose).
See this VERY helpful advice on how to write your intro/begin your essay.
Second Paragraph: Summary of the article given with the topic you chose
When you refer to an article, you should give the title, author, and publication.
A summary should be a brief, objective overview (meaning no opinionated or
evaluative comments) of the main ideas of the original. In the summary
paragraph, you should periodically use author tags to indicate that you are
summarizing, that you are conveying someone else’s views. So you should say
things such as, “According to Jane Doe…” or “The author points out that…”
Also, in a summary, use transitions to convey to the reader the order of ideas
presented in the original, to connect the summary’s ideas and make it coherent,
things like, “First, the author discusses the problem of….”, “Furthermore, he
addresses the issue of….” “Doe concludes by pointing out that…”
The summary should be written as such, meaning you are continuously
referring to the text and the author.
A few more things about a summary: it should not contain quotations, it should
be only one paragraph, and it should accurately and succinctly give the main
ideas of the original.
Read this helpful advice on how to correctly summarize a text.
Third Paragraph: A thorough discussion/explanation of the philosophical
question to be analyzed in the essay
Here are some points you should address in this paragraph:
•
•
•
•
How does the topic of the article you chose relate to this question?
Why is this question of concern philosophically; in other words, what
about this question makes it a philosophical question?
Why does it matter how this question is answered? In other words, what is
at stake in this question? Why do we care about it? Why is it important for
everyone, not only philosophers?
What other philosophers have addressed the question? (only mention
those you intend to discuss in your essay) What philosophical theories or
positions might help us discuss this question? (also, only mention those
you intend to discuss in your essay)
Body Paragraphs
The number of body paragraphs is your decision as the author, but each
paragraph should thoroughly discuss the philosophical question you are
analyzing. Possible ways to go about this: one or more paragraphs about how
another/other philosophers have answered/written about the topic your
question relates to; one or more paragraphs about a philosophical concept,
problem, or theory that relates to this question and perhaps helps us look at
this question. Helpful tip: often, the articles given above as topics refer to
philosophers and/or philosophical theories or concepts. These might be good
places to start your research. Similarly, our text refers to philosophers and
theories that deal with many of the topics related to the questions on the list.
You may also include a paragraph on your response to the philosophical
question you are analyzing, but the majority of content in your body
paragraphs should be from your research.
You must include research (incorporated through quotation, paraphrase, or
both) from at least 3 sources. One of these must be a philosophical journal in
the DCCCD databases) if you are not sure whether the journal you want to use
IS a philosophical journal, google the title and you will be able to find a
description of the journal’s focus. Typically, you can tell by the title of the
journal, e.g., The Journal of Philosophy, Journal of the History of Philosophy,
The Review of Metaphysics.
Other allowed sources are below (any sources not listed here will not count):
•
•
•
Our textbook for the course, Problems from Philosophy
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
If you need help using the databases, you can get help in person in the library
or online using the ‘Ask a Librarian’ tool. When incorporating sources into your
work, they must be present so as to serve your position/argument/discussion.
In other words, they should not be there just to be there; they should be
incorporated AS part of the discussion/argument, in a meaningful, substantial
way.
Conclusion
Since your essay is an analysis of a philosophical question, your conclusion
should effectively bring that discussion to a close. Avoid simply repeating
yourself in the conclusion.
See this VERY helpful advice on how to conclude your essay.
Philosophy Student
Professor Name
PHIL 1301
29 May 2019
Religion and Morality: What’s the Connection?
[why this is a good title: it specifically relates to the main idea of the essay; the
reader knows exactly what this essay will be about]
A conundrum of philosophers for centuries is “What is it to be human”? Many have tried
to formulate an answer, but few have gotten close to achieving that goal. Ai Weiwei, an artist
out of Germany [well done: always say who someone is rather than just giving a
name, e.g. ‘Jane Doe, a professor of philosophy at Yale, says blah blah blah’],
presents an answer that contains minimal details but significant meaning: it changes over time
and is different for each person. His article “The Question We Must Keep Asking” [the
writer of this essay should have also given the publication for the article, The
New York Times; always give title, author, and publication the first time you
refer to a newspaper article] provides an insight into his analysis of the question. He
mentions that religion is an important influence on humanity. Religion plays a large role in the
human experience and making it unique for everyone whether they participate or not. Some
argue that religion provides a moral lifeline for its followers and others claim it has no effect on a
person’s morals. The philosophical question posed in this essay is “Without religion would
people become more, less, or be equally morally corrupt”? [well done: the focus of the
essay is an analysis of a philosophical question, so that should be indicated in
the introduction; the reader should know what question will be analyzed in the
essay] While Weiwei provides a complex, intriguing answer to the first question, the
second question is a bit more difficult yet important to explain, and two important views
provide a counter argument to the article’s viewpoint on the philosophical question. [why
this is a good thesis: the writer gives an indication of what will be discussed in
the essay: the philosophical question being analyzed and how it will be
discussed (in relation to counter arguments, in this case)]
[why this is a good introduction: after reading it, the reader knows he or she
will be reading an essay about a philosophical question that relates to an article
discussed in the essay and has a general idea of what will be discussed:
philosophy as it relates to this question]
In the article, “The Question We Must Keep Asking” in the New York Times, the author
Ai Weiwei attempts to describe his opinion on the question: “What is it to be human”? His
answer is that there is no subjective answer that is the same throughout time; he claims that it is
dependent on two factors: the person’s social, cultural, economic, and political experiences and
the way he defines himself. Furthermore, he says that the answer is continually changing every
day, and each experience a person has will influence his outlook on the topic. Weiwei points out
that different institutions that are the backbone of each person’s life are changing every day as
well; some are becoming stronger, and others are diminishing. These changes can challenge the
views one had previously and cause the emergence of a completely different answer. The author
then discusses how many of the cultural and moral changes that have occurred in the past are
accredited to the posed question at the beginning. The only difference is the contexts of the time.
According to Weiwei, people’s reluctance to tackle this question is the source of the majority of
issues in the world today. Near the end of the article, the author focuses on two important
rights and qualities that each person is entitled to, no matter the situation: self-definition and
human dignity. If humankind loses these two qualities, then the answer to the original question
becomes “nothing”. To conclude, the author states that everyone’s morals, faith, direction of
life, and definition of a human are dependent on each person’s experiences and view of himself
(Weiwei).
[why this is a good summary: it uses author tags and transitions (indicated in
bold) to indicate the order of ideas in the original, it is objective (does not
contain any evaluative or opinionated comments from the writer of this essay),
and it clearly and succinctly conveys the original’s main ideas (not too much
detail, and after reading the summary, someone has a general idea of the
article’s main points)]
The main point of Weiwei’s article connects quite well to the posed philosophical
question, “Without religion would people become more, less, or be equally morally corrupt”?
Weiwei focuses on the point that the definition of a human is dependent on each person’s selfperception and free-thinking ability. These two qualities are the support system of each person’s
way of life, which includes his morals, faith, and opinions (Weiwei). Since the author claims that
one’s morals are based on his religion and other factors, the philosophical question seeks to
understand if this point is actually true. This question has philosophical importance because if
religion is proven to not have a positive effect on one’s morals, then religion could be viewed as
obsolete, leading to significant changes in societal structure and the viewpoints of billions of
people. The answer to this question could also cause a shift in opinions of various philosophical
arguments regarding religion such as the mind-body problem and the existence of a soul. It is
important for each person because the majority of the population practices in one version of faith
or another, whether that be Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, or Islam. The negation of religion
would drastically alter the majority’s way of life and belief structure that had been built over
centuries. This could lead to unprecedented changes in culture and society. While there are many
theories that take each side of the debate, two important ones that propose a world without
religion would be equally morally corrupt are secular humanism and utilitarianism.
[The above paragraph addresses all the points given in the instructions for
paragraph 3:
“Third Paragraph: A thorough discussion/explanation of the philosophical
question to be analyzed in the essay
Here are some points you should address in this paragraph:
•
How does the topic of the article you chose relate to this question?
•
Why is this question of concern philosophically; in other words, what
about this question makes it a philosophical question?
•
Why does it matter how this question is answered? In other words, what is
at stake in this question? Why do we care about it? Why is it important for
everyone, not only philosophers?
•
What other philosophers have addressed the question? (only mention
those you intend to discuss in your essay) What philosophical theories or
positions might help us discuss this question? (also, only mention those
you intend to discuss in your essay)”]
One theory that aims to undermine the importance of religion in morality is secular
humanism. [topic sentence for the paragraph: each body paragraph should have
a topic sentence that expresses the main idea of the paragraph] Secular humanism
refers to “a set of ethical and political values that is agnostic about religious claims and embraces
a certain separation of church and state” (Gascoigne). Although those who subscribe to this
theory usually have the same morals and ethics as Christian followers, they do not believe in
God. However, they do not discredit that a god exists, but rather that they do not share in the
belief of an all-powerful being. That key separation is the only substantial difference between the
two discussed groups except their debates on “sexual ethics and bioethics” (Gascoigne). For
example, Gough Whitlam, the Australian prime minister from 1972 to 1975 and a secular
humanist [well done: always explain who people are when you mention them for
the first time], said that his political goals during his 1972 campaign were “a commitment to
human dignity, manifested in the pursuit of justice and motivated by a love of neighbor—a love
of neighbor expressed, for example, in his passionate dedication to eliminating discrimination”
(Gascoigne). These views are similar to the Christian belief that each person should be treated
with the love and respect that God bestowed on humanity. Whitlam shows that a person does
not need to believe in God or a structured religion to have a correct set of ethical values
(Gascoigne). [well done: this sentence directly connects the topic of this
paragraph, secular humanism, to the question being analyzed]
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays
focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it explains what secular
humanism is, rather than assuming that the reader knows; it discusses sources
in a meaningful, relevant, and substantial way that supports the thesis of this
essay; it uses transitions to connect ideas, making the paragraph coherent; it
directly connects to the philosophical question being analyzed.]
While secular humanism holds similar beliefs to those in a religious structure,
utilitarianism takes a completely different approach to the issue. [excellent transition
from the previous paragraph to this paragraph] In utilitarianism, “actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness” (Yim). The word happiness in this situation is described as “intended pleasure, and
the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Yim). No longer are
ethical decisions based on some religious code but whether a decision will bring about the most
pleasure to the majority. Pleasure is the point at which there is the least amount of pain possible
but at the same time rich in enjoyment. Therefore, a right action is one that promotes the
destruction of pain rather than the existence of it. While utilitarians do not say that their ethical
decisions have more justification than those of another religious group, they believe that the
source of moral guidance is significantly different. This follows the conclusion that
utilitarianism claims that a world without religious influences would be equally morally
corrupt compared to the modern world (Yim). [well done: this sentence directly
connects the topic of this paragraph, utilitarianism, to the question being
analyzed]
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays
focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it explains some aspects
of utilitarianism, rather than assuming that the reader is familiar with the
theory; it discusses sources in a meaningful, relevant, and substantial way that
supports the thesis of this essay; it uses transitions to connect ideas, making
the paragraph coherent; it directly connects to the philosophical question being
analyzed.]
While both theories contain valid points, I do not subscribe to either side.
[excellent transition from the previous paragraph to this paragraph] Rather, I
would align myself with the view that religion promotes a more morally good world. As a
Catholic, I take my faith and its beliefs very seriously. While I do not think that my morals are
higher than another person who does not believe in God, my belief is that religion provides a
moral structure that acts as a support and guidance system for a believer of that certain religion.
Without its presence, many people would be left wandering endlessly through life, looking for
some moral code to subscribe to. A lack of guidance means more choices that could result in an
immoral outcome. This can be problematic in many ways but mainly would cause the decrease in
overall sentiment of morality of the world.
[why the above is a well-written paragraph: it has a topic sentence and stays
focused on the idea expressed in the topic sentence; it gives the author’s views
but is directly related to the philosophical question being analyzed.]
While the human experience and religion are closely related, the effect of religion
creating a morally better world is a highly debated question that is difficult to answer.
[excellent beginning to the conclusion; it directly refers to the question being
analyzed.] While opposition to this point claims religious doctrine is not needed to live a
morally good life, a structured doctrine allows a person to live by a guideline of rules to promote
a morally good experience. This is clearly seen as secular humanist and Christians hold similar
ethical beliefs, but believing in the religious doctrine allows a larger group of people to follow
these beliefs and promote a society with a better set of morals, especially those people who are
more easily swayed to the wrong when given the freedom of choice. As humans, we are naturally
inclined to do what makes us feel good. This may be completely different from what the morally
good choice is. If people treat each other with dignity and respect, as the majority of religious
ideologies promote, the best possible moral world will come to fruition.
[why the above is a well-written conclusion: it relates directly to the main idea
of the essay: the question being analyzed; it brings the essay to a close without
simply repeating what has already been said in the essay; it brings up another
point about why this philosophical question matters.]
More points about this essay:
•
It is a specifically, explicitly philosophical essay, meaning that it is about
philosophy from beginning to end; it discusses 2 philosophical theories and
relates them to the question being analyzed
•
It uses sources in a meaningful, substantial way, meaning that rather than
simply mentioning sources, it discusses sources and relates them to the
question being analyzed; also, the types of sources meet the requirements for
allowed sources
•
It is well proofread; errors are minimal
•
It uses MLA correctly for in-text citations and the works cited page (see below)
•
It meets the minimum length of 4 pages
Works Cited
Gascoigne, Robert. “Shared Commitments.” Commonweal, vol. 142, no. 11, 12 June 2015, pp.
11–14. Religion & Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost,
dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-ebscohostcom.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=102954416&site=ehostlive. Accessed 27 May 2019.
Weiwei, Ai. “The Question We Must Keep Asking.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 23 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/opinion/ai-weiwei-art-human.html.
Accessed 26 May 2019.
Yim, Dan. “The Logic and Mill's Infamous Proof in Utilitarianism.” British Journal for the
History of Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 4, Nov. 2008, pp. 773–788. Religion & Philosophy
Collection, EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09608780802407530. Accessed 27 May 2019.
What Is College For?
BY GARY GUTTING
DECEMBER 14, 2011 6:30 PM
The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at
the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events
that have appeared in the news.
Most American college students are wrapping up yet another semester this week. For
many of them, and their families, the past months or years in school have likely involved
considerable time, commitment, effort and expense. Was it worth it?
Some evidence suggests that it was. A Pew Research survey this year found that 74
percent of graduates from four-year colleges say that their education was “very useful in
helping them grow intellectually.” Sixty-nine percent said that “it was very useful in
helping them grow and mature as a person” and 55 percent claimed that “it was very
useful in helping prepare them for a job or career.” Moreover, 86 percent of these
graduates think “college has been a good investment for them personally.”
Nonetheless, there is incessant talk about the “failure” of higher education. (Anthony
Grafton at The New York Review of Books provides an excellent survey of recent
discussions.) Much of this has to do with access: it’s too expensive, admissions policies
are unfair, the drop-out rate is too high. There is also dismay at the exploitation of
graduate students and part-time faculty members, the over-emphasis on frills such as
semi-professional athletics or fancy dorms and student centers, and the proliferation of
expensive and unneeded administrators. As important as they are, these criticisms
don’t contradict the Pew Survey’s favorable picture of the fundamental value of students’
core educational experience.
But, as Grafton’s discussion also makes clear, there are serious concerns about the
quality of this experience. In particular, the university curriculum leaves students
disengaged from the material they are supposed to be learning. They see most of their
courses as intrinsically “boring,” of value only if they provide training relevant to future
employment or if the teacher has a pleasing (amusing, exciting, “relevant”) way of
presenting the material. As a result, students spend only as much time as they need to
get what they see as acceptable grades (on average, about 12 to 14 hour a week for all
courses combined). Professors have ceased to expect genuine engagement from
students and often give good grades (B or better) to work that is at best minimally
adequate.
This lack of academic engagement is real, even among schools with the best students
and the best teachers, and it increases dramatically as the quality of the school
decreases. But it results from a basic misunderstanding — by both students and
teachers — of what colleges are for.
First of all, they are not simply for the education of students. This is an essential
function, but the raison d’être of a college is to nourish a world of intellectual culture;
that is, a world of ideas, dedicated to what we can know scientifically, understand
humanistically, or express artistically. In our society, this world is mainly populated by
members of college faculties: scientists, humanists, social scientists (who straddle the
humanities and the sciences properly speaking), and those who study the fine arts. Law,
medicine and engineering are included to the extent that they are still understood as
“learned professions,” deploying practical skills that are nonetheless deeply rooted in
scientific knowledge or humanistic understanding. When, as is often the case in
business education and teacher training, practical skills far outweigh theoretical
understanding, we are moving beyond the intellectual culture that defines higher
education.
Our support for higher education makes sense only if we regard this intellectual culture
as essential to our society. Otherwise, we could provide job-training and basic social
and moral formation for young adults far more efficiently and cheaply, through, say, a
combination of professional and trade schools, and public service programs. There
would be no need to support, at great expense, the highly specialized interests of, for
example, physicists, philosophers, anthropologists and art historians. Colleges and
universities have no point if we do not value the knowledge and understanding to which
their faculties are dedicated.
This has important consequences for how we regard what goes on in college
classrooms. Teachers need to see themselves as, first of all, intellectuals, dedicated to
understanding poetry, history, human psychology, physics, biology — or whatever is the
focus of their discipline. But they also need to realize that this dedication expresses not
just their idiosyncratic interest in certain questions but a conviction that those questions
have general human significance, even apart from immediately practical
applications. This is why a discipline requires not just research but also teaching. Nonexperts need access to what experts have learned, and experts need to make sure that
their research remains in contact with general human concerns. The classroom is the
primary locus of such contact.
Students, in turn, need to recognize that their college education is above all a matter of
opening themselves up to new dimensions of knowledge and understanding. Teaching
is not a matter of (as we too often say) “making a subject (poetry, physics, philosophy)
interesting” to students but of students coming to see how such subjects
are intrinsically interesting. It is more a matter of students moving beyond their
interests than of teachers fitting their subjects to interests that students already
have. Good teaching does not make a course’s subject more interesting; it gives the
students more interests — and so makes them more interesting.
Students readily accept the alleged wisdom that their most important learning at college
takes place outside the classroom. Many faculty members — thinking of their labs,
libraries or studies — would agree. But the truth is that, for both students and faculty
members, the classroom is precisely where the most important learning occurs.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment