Writing a Philosophy Paper
I.
CHOOSING A TOPIC AND DEVELOPING A THESIS
A. How do I know which of the readings to choose from?
You must choose your topic from the final assigned reading (see syllabus).
B. What do I write about?
A philosophy paper should be an argumentative paper. The first thing you need to do is to
develop a THESIS. Developing a thesis is probably the most difficult part of the paper.
Students normally struggle in coming up with a proper thesis. The thesis should affirm a
position on some controversial issue related to one of the readings. A thesis should state
the main and central purpose of the paper (i.e., What do you want to accomplish? What is
the overall purpose of the paper?). Your thesis should not be too broad or ambitious; it
should be very specific to the reading. A thesis should answer a central question related
to the reading. Here are some examples of theses.
Example 1:
Question: Does the existence of evil demonstrate that God does not exist?
Answer: Hume’s argument from evil demonstrates that God probably does not exist.
Thesis: In this paper I defend Hume’s argument from evil for the non-existence of God.
Example 2
Question: Does human existence have meaning? If so, in what does it consist?
Answer: The meaning of human existence can be derived from human happiness.
Thesis: In this paper I critique Richard Taylor’s theory of the meaning of human
existence and argue that happiness can make human life meaningful.
Example 3
Question: Is it rational to believe in God?
Answer: It is rational to believe in God only if you have evidence for the existence of
God.
Thesis: In this paper I argue that Pascal’s wager argument is flawed and that it is only
rational to believe in God if one has evidence for God’s existence.
II.
STRUCTURING AND ORGANIZING THE PAPER
A. How do I organize my paper?
The next step is organizing your paper. Here a simple outline can be very beneficial. The
organization of the paper should be guided by the specific thesis; however, most papers
will follow a very similar format.
First, if you are defending or critiquing a view, you will need to explain the view. This is
always the first step. Explain clearly what the arguments are and use examples to
illustrate your point. Here you might want to include some citations (use sparingly).
Second, after having elucidated the view and arguments, you can begin your defense or
critique. Again, you need to be very clear about what your main point is and why
someone should believe you. This section is where your originality and creativity gets to
shine. This section is your main contribution to the subject area, and it is here where you
get to present YOUR arguments, perhaps something completely new and original.
Third, all papers ought to consider objections and replies. What kind of objections to
YOUR arguments can you foresee other philosophers making? Explain these and respond
to them. What are the weak points in your arguments and how could this be improved?
Finally, all papers should have a conclusion where you summarize the thesis and your
main arguments. In the conclusion you might also want to point out areas in which future
research is needed.
III.
WRITING THE INTRODUCTION
A. How long should the introduction be?
The introduction should not be very long, especially for a 5 to 7 page paper. 1 or 2
paragraphs are sufficient.
B. What do I include in the introduction?
The introduction requires only two things: (1) the thesis statement and (2) several
statements explaining the organization of the paper. The best way to understand this is
through a simple example. Let us consider thesis 3 above.
Sample Introduction
In The Wager Blaise Pascal argued that despite the lack of evidence in support of the
existence of God, it is more rational to believe in God than not to believe in God. In this
paper, I argue that Pascal’s wager argument is flawed and that it is only rational to
believe in God if one has evidence for God’s existence. First, I explain Pascal’s wager
argument and elucidate his reasons for claiming that it is more rational to be a believer
than a non-believer. Second, I show that his conception of evidence is different than the
conceptions we understand to be essentially connected to rationality. I argue that
evidence must be connected to truth (through evidential support) and his conception is
not. Third, I consider some possible objections to my argument.
Basic Outline
Part I: Introduction
Part II: Pascal’s Wager Argument
Part III: Rationality and Evidence
Part IV: Objections Answered
Part V: Conclusion
IV.
GRADING (See Rubric)
I use a grading rubric to grade the paper. You will be evaluated on 4 parts.
First, you will be assessed on the quality of the introduction. This is worth 20% of the
paper’s grade. I am looking for 2 things: (1) a clear and explicit thesis statement and (2)
clear and explicit developing statements.
Second, you will be assessed on the structure and organization of the paper, which is
worth 20%. Is the paper structured as stated in the introduction? Do you meet the
objectives stated in the thesis? Is the paper well organized? Is there a logical flow of
ideas? Does the paper read fluidly (smooth transitions)?
Third, you will be assessed on the quality of arguments and explanations. This is worth
40% of the paper’s grade. Did you understand the philosophical view well? Did you
understand the arguments? Are your arguments valid, sound, or cogent? Are your
arguments fallacious or very weak?
Fourth, you will be assessed on your overall writing skills (i.e., word use, sentence
structure, grammar, and punctuation are excellent). This is worth 20% of the paper’s
grade.
Grading Rubric for Paper
Name ________________________
2.5
3.0
3.25
Total Score: _______________
3.5
3.75
4.0
4.25
4.5
5.0
Introduction
F
There is no
thesis
Statement
There are
no explicit
statements
developing
the paper.
D-
D
Either There
is no thesis
statement or
there are no
explicit
statements
developing
the paper.
C-
C
There is a
vague or
poorly stated
thesis
statement and
there are poor
statements
developing
the paper.
B-
B
Either there is
a vague or
poorly stated
thesis
statement or
there are poor
statements
developing the
paper
A-
A
Clear and
explicit Thesis
statement and
clear and
explicit
developing
statements.
20%
Body Structure
and
Organization
The paper
is not
organized.
There is no
apparent
coherence
to the
organizatio
n of the
paper.
Paper lacks
organization
and
structure.
There is no
apparent
logical flow
of ideas.
Paper does
not follow
the
development
described in
the
introduction
Paper shows
some
organization
and structure.
There are
some breaks
in the logical
flow of ideas.
Paper does
not follow the
development
described in
the
introduction.
Paper shows
some
organization
and structure.
There are some
breaks in the
logical flow of
ideas. Paper
follows to
some extent the
development
described in
the
introduction.
Paper is well
organized and
there is a
logical flow
of ideas.
Paper reads
fluidly. Paper
follows the
development
described in
the
introduction.
There is no
clear
objective
and no
apparent
explanation
or
arguments.
There is not
a clear
objective.
There are
poor
arguments
and poor
explanations
of
philosophica
l theories.
There is not a
clear
objective.
Either there
are poorly
constructed
and developed
arguments or
poorly
developed
critical
explanations
of
philosophical
theories.
There is a clear
objective.
There is
argumentation
and/or critical
explanations of
philosophical
theories.
There is a
clear
objective.
There are well
constructed
and developed
arguments
and/or well
developed
critical
explanations
of
philosophical
theories.
Writing is
poor. Paper
cannot be
understood.
Writing is
poor.
Significant
deficiencies
in word use,
grammar,
punctuation,
and/or
presentation.
Writing is for
the most part
clear.
Adequate use
of wording,
grammar, and
punctuation.
Errors are not
excessive.
Writing is for
the most part
clear. Good use
of wording,
grammar, and
punctuation.
Errors are not
excessive.
Writing is
excellent.
Word use,
sentence
structure,
grammar, and
punctuation
are excellent.
20%
Quality of
Argument and/
Explanation
40%
Writing
Grammar and
spelling
20%
Paper Topics
Your paper topics should focus on Prudence or Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics:
Intellectual Virtue
Here are some examples of thesis statements.
1) In this paper, I will critically examine Aristotle’s conception of prudence and discuss how
it leads to eudaimonia.
2) In this paper, I will assess how the moral and intellectual virtues work together to provide
complete virtue.
3) In this paper, I examine the importance of prudence for Aristotle’s virtue ethics.
Review Questions
These questions can guide you to important issues that should be addressed when discussing
Aristotle’s conception of prudence.
1) What is the difference between intellectual and moral virtues?
2) What are the two parts of the soul/mind?
3) Explain each of the different kinds of reason: (1) scientific, (2) craft, (3) prudence, (4)
wisdom and (5) understanding. How are they different?
4) What type of reason concerns ethical thinking (deliberation)? How is it different from the
other types of reasoning?
5) What is the difference between cleverness and prudence?
6) How is truth related (if at all) to prudence?
7) How are desires related (if at all) to prudence?
8) How are particulars related to prudence?
9) Provide a definition of prudence.
10) Aristotle says that produce is normative and prescriptive whare as cipomprehension is
descriptive. What does he mean?
11) Aristotle says that prudence is not just action in accordance with reason but rather action
involving reason. Explain what he means.
Grading Rubric for Paper
Name ________________________
2.5
F
Introduction
3.0 3.25
DD
Total Score: _______________
3.5
C-
3.75
C
4.0
B-
4.25
B
4.5
A-
5.0
A
There is no
thesis
Statement
There are
no explicit
statements
developing
the paper.
Either There
is no thesis
statement or
there are no
explicit
statements
developing
the paper.
There is a vague
or poorly stated
thesis statement
and there are
poor statements
developing the
paper.
Either there is a
vague or poorly
stated thesis
statement or
there are poor
statements
developing the
paper
Clear and
explicit Thesis
statement and
clear and
explicit
developing
statements.
The paper is
not
organized.
There is no
apparent
coherence
to the
organization
of the
paper.
Paper lacks
organization
and structure.
There is no
apparent
logical flow
of ideas.
Paper does
not follow the
development
described in
the
introduction
Paper shows
some
organization
and structure.
There are some
breaks in the
logical flow of
ideas. Paper
does not follow
the development
described in the
introduction.
Paper shows
some
organization and
structure. There
are some breaks
in the logical
flow of ideas.
Paper follows to
some extent the
development
described in the
introduction.
Paper is well
organized and
there is a logical
flow of ideas.
Paper reads
fluidly. Paper
follows the
development
described in the
introduction.
There is no
clear
objective
and no
apparent
explanation
or
arguments.
There is not a
clear
objective.
There are
poor
arguments
and poor
explanations
of
philosophical
theories.
There is not a
clear objective.
Either there are
poorly
constructed and
developed
arguments or
poorly
developed
critical
explanations of
philosophical
theories.
There is a clear
objective. There
is argumentation
and/or critical
explanations of
philosophical
theories.
There is a clear
objective. There
are well
constructed and
developed
arguments
and/or well
developed
critical
explanations of
philosophical
theories.
Writing is
poor. Paper
cannot be
Writing is
poor.
Significant
deficiencies
in word use,
grammar,
punctuation,
and/or
Writing is for
the most part
clear. Adequate
use of wording,
grammar, and
punctuation.
Errors are not
excessive.
Writing is for the
most part clear.
Good use of
wording,
grammar, and
punctuation.
Errors are not
excessive.
Writing is
excellent. Word
use, sentence
structure,
grammar, and
punctuation are
excellent.
20%
Body
Structure
and
Organization
20%
Quality of
Argument
and/
Explanation
40%
Writing
understood.
Grammar
and spelling
presentation.
20%
Purchase answer to see full
attachment