Philosophy abortion Essay the author\u2019s argument for his or her position.<\/p>\n
Choose any one of the writers we have read on abortion (Warren, Marquis, Thomson) and do two things:
\n1) Fully explain, in detail, the author\u2019s argument for his or her position.
\n2) Refute the author\u2019s argument.
\nThat is, you have to disagree with the author and make the case that the author\u2019s argument is inadequate. Make sure you are crystal clear about how, exactly, the author\u2019s argument goes wrong.
\n*NOTE: This is not a research paper. You need not deal with any readings other than the course readings that are relevant to your topic. The purpose of this paper is for you to show that you understand and can critically engage with ideas, not for you to look up and report on what others have said about the ideas. That said, if you think additional sources will help you make your argument, feel free to use them.
\n*If you do not want to write about abortion and want to construct your own paper topic, you may, but you must check it with me first \u2013 by no later than Friday September 28th.
\nII. Writing a Philosophy Paper:
\n(The following is taken mostly from \u201cWriting A Philosophy Paper\u201d by Peter Horban, here: http:\/\/www.sfu.ca\/philosophy\/resources\/writing.html I have made some changes here and there.)
\nGood writing is the product of proper training, much practice, and hard work. The following remarks, though they will not guarantee a top quality paper, should help you determine where best to direct your efforts. I offer first some general comments on philosophical writing, and then some specific “do”s and “don’t”s.
\n2
\nOne of the first points to be clear about is that a philosophical essay is quite different from
\nan essay in most other subjects. That is because it is neither a research paper nor an exercise
\nin literary self-expression. It is not a report of what various scholars have had to say on a
\nparticular topic. It does not present the latest findings of tests or experiments. And it does
\nnot present your personal feelings or impressions. Instead, it is a reasoned defense of a
\nthesis. What does that mean?
\nAbove all, it means that there must be a specific point that you are trying to establish –
\nsomething that you are trying to convince the reader to accept – together with grounds or
\njustification for its acceptance.
\nBefore you start to write your paper, you should be able to state exactly what it is that you
\nare trying to show. This is harder than it sounds. It simply will not do to have a rough idea of
\nwhat you want to establish. A rough idea is usually one that is not well worked out, not
\nclearly expressed, and as a result, not likely to be understood. You should be able to state in
\na single short sentence precisely what you want to prove. If you cannot formulate your thesis
\nthis way, odds are you are not clear enough about it.
\nThe next task is to determine how to go about convincing the reader that your thesis is
\ncorrect. In two words, your method must be that of rational persuasion. You will present
\narguments. At this point, students frequently make one or more of several common errors.
\nSometimes they feel that since it is clear to them that their thesis is true, it does not need
\nmuch argumentation. It is common to overestimate the strength of your own position. That
\nis because you already accept that point of view. But how will your opponent respond? It is
\nsafest to assume that your reader is intelligent and knows a lot about your subject, but
\ndisagrees with you.
\nAnother common mistake is to think that your case will be stronger if you mention, even if
\nbriefly, virtually every argument that you have come across in support of your position.
\nSometimes this is called the “fortress approach.” In actual fact, it is almost certain that the
\nfortress approach will not result in a very good paper. There are several reasons for this.
\nFirst, your reader is likely to find it difficult to keep track of so many different arguments,
\nespecially if these arguments approach the topic from different directions.
\nSecond, the ones that will stand out will be the very best ones and the very worst ones. It is
\nimportant to show some discrimination here. Only the most compelling argument should be
\ndeveloped. Including weaker ones only gives the impression that you are unable to tell the
\ndifference between the two.
\nThird, including many different arguments will result in spreading yourself too thinly. It is far
\nbetter to cover less ground in greater depth than to range further afield in a superficial
\nmanner. It will also help to give your paper focus.
\nIn order to produce a good philosophy paper, it is first necessary to think very carefully and
\n3
\nclearly about your topic. Unfortunately, your reader (likely your marker or instructor) has no
\naccess to those thoughts except by way of what actually ends up on the page. He or she
\ncannot tell what you meant to say but did not, and cannot read in what you would quickly
\npoint out if you were conversing face to face. For better or for worse, your paper is all that is
\navailable. It must stand on its own. The responsibility for ensuring the accurate
\ncommunication of ideas falls on the writer’s shoulders. You must say exactly what you mean
\nand in a way that minimizes the chances of being misunderstood. It is difficult to
\noveremphasize this point.
\nThere is no such thing as a piece of good philosophical writing that is unclear,
\nungrammatical, or unintelligible. Clarity and precision are essential elements here. A poor
\nwriting style militates against both of these.
\n\u201cDO\u201dS AND \u201cDON\u2019T\u201dS FOR WRITING YOUR PHILOSOPHY PAPER
\n1. MAKE THE INTRO SHORT AND STATE YOUR THESIS. As it says above, a
\nphilosophy paper is a reasoned defense of a thesis. Your thesis statement is a
\nstatement of the main claim that your paper will seek to establish. Your opening
\nparagraph should contain your thesis statement, and the rest of the paper should be
\nspent establishing that thesis with whatever argument you intend to offer. Avoid
\ngeneral, historical, or flowery introductions. Don’t use phrases like “Since the dawn
\nof history, philosophers have been arguing about…” The first paragraph of your essay
\nshould be short and to the point. It should indicate the topic of your paper and
\nclearly state what you are going to show in your paper. For example:
\nDon Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a
\nvaluable future. I shall argue that Marquis\u2019 position is inadequate because it
\nrests on a false theory about what makes killing wrong.
\nThis is how introductory paragraphs should look. They should be short and sweet,
\nand they should indicate what you are going to do in your paper. It’s fine to use the
\nfirst person. This is a paper in which you will be giving reasons in defense of your
\nposition.
\n2. AVOID LENGTHY QUOTATIONS. Inexperienced writers rely too heavily on
\nquotations and paraphrases. Direct quotation is best restricted to those cases where it
\nis essential to establish another writer’s exact selection of words. Even paraphrasing
\nshould be kept to a minimum. After all, it is your paper. It is your thoughts that your
\ninstructor is concerned with. Keep that in mind, especially when your essay topic
\nrequires you to critically assess someone else’s views.
\n3. NO FENCE SITTING. Do not present a number of positions in your paper and
\nthen end by saying that you are not qualified to settle the matter. In particular, do not
\nclose by saying that philosophers have been divided over this issue for as long as
\n4
\nhumans have been keeping record and you cannot be expected to resolve the dispute
\nin a few short pages. Your instructor knows that. But you can be expected to take a
\nclear stand based on an evaluation of the argument(s) presented. Go out on a limb. If
\nyou have argued well, it will support you.
\n4. AVOID CUTENESS. Good philosophical writing usually has an air of simple dignity
\nabout it. Your topic is no joke. No writers whose views you have been asked to read
\nare idiots. (If you think they are, then you have not understood them.) Name calling
\nis inappropriate and could never substitute for careful argumentation anyway.
\n5. DEFEND YOUR VIEW. When arguing against other positions, it is important to
\nrealize that you cannot show that your opponents are mistaken just by claiming that
\ntheir overall conclusions are false. Nor will it do simply to claim that at least one of
\ntheir premises is false. You must demonstrate these sorts of things, and in a fashion
\nthat does not presuppose that your position is correct. Assume that your reader is
\nconstantly asking such questions as “Why should I accept that?” If you presuppose
\nthat he or she is at least mildly skeptical of most of your claims, you are more likely
\nto succeed in writing a paper that argues for a position. Most first attempts at writing
\nphilosophy essays fall down on this point. Substantiate your claims whenever there is
\nreason to think that your critics would not grant them.
\n6. ORGANIZE CAREFULLY. Before you start to write, make an outline of how you
\nwant to argue. There should be a logical progression of ideas – one that will be easy
\nfor the reader to follow. If your paper is well organized, the reader will be led along
\nin what seems a natural way. If you jump about in your essay, the reader will balk. It
\nwill take a real effort to follow you, and he or she may feel it not worthwhile. It is a
\ngood idea to let your outline simmer for a few days before you write your first draft.
\nDoes it still seem to flow smoothly when you come back to it? If not, the best prose
\nin the world will not be enough to make it work.
\n7. USE THE RIGHT WORDS. Once you have determined your outline, you must
\nselect the exact words that will convey your meaning to the reader. A dictionary is
\nalmost essential here. Do not settle for a word that (you think) comes close to
\ncapturing the sense you have in mind. Notice that “infer” does not mean “imply”;
\n“disinterested” does not mean “uninterested”; and “reference” does not mean either
\n“illusion” or “allusion.” Make certain that you can use “its” and “it’s” correctly.
\nNotice that certain words such as “therefore,” “hence,” “since,” and “follows from”
\nare strong logical connectives. When you use such expressions you are asserting that
\ncertain tight logical relations hold between the claims in question. You had better be
\nright. Finally, check the spelling of any word you are not sure of. There is no excuse
\nfor “existance” appearing in any philosophy essay.
\n8. GIVE CREDIT \u2013 DON\u2019T PLAGIARIZE. When quoting or paraphrasing, always
\ngive some citation. Indicate your indebtedness, whether it is for specific words,
\ngeneral ideas, or a particular line of argument. To use another writer’s words, ideas,
\nor arguments as if they were your own is to plagiarize. Plagiarism is against the rules
\nof academic institutions and is dishonest.
\n5
\nNOTE: IF YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH ANY PLAGIARISM PAPER, YOU WILL
\nAUTOMATICALLY GET A ZERO ON THE PAPER ASSIGNMENT, WHICH
\nWILL NEARLY ENSURE THAT YOU FAIL THE COURSE. DO NOT TAKE
\nTHIS RISK.
\n9. ANTICIPATE OBJECTIONS. If your position is worth arguing for, there are going
\nto be reasons which have led some people to reject it. Such reasons will amount to
\ncriticisms of your stand. A good way to demonstrate the strength of your position is
\nto consider one or two of the best of these objections and show how they can be
\novercome. This amounts to rejecting the grounds for rejecting your case, and is
\nanalogous to stealing your enemies’ ammunition before they have a chance to fire it
\nat you. The trick here is to anticipate the kinds of objections that your critics would
\nactually raise against you if you did not disarm them first. The other challenge is to
\ncome to grips with the criticisms you have cited. You must argue that these criticisms
\nmiss the mark as far as your case is concerned, or that they are in some sense illconceived
\ndespite their plausibility. It takes considerable practice and exposure to
\nphilosophical writing to develop this engaging style of argumentation, but it is worth
\nit.
\n10. EDIT BOLDLY. I have never met a person whose first draft of a paper could not
\nbe improved significantly by rewriting. The secret to good writing is rewriting –
\noften. Of course it will not do just to reproduce the same thing again. Better drafts
\nare almost always shorter drafts – not because ideas have been left out, but because
\nwords have been cut out as ideas have been clarified. Every word that is not needed
\nonly clutters. Clear sentences do not just happen. They are the result of toughminded
\nediting.
\nThere is much more that could be said about clear writing. (I have not stopped to talk about
\ngrammatical and stylistic points, for instance.) Some final words should be added about
\nproofreading. Do it. Again. After that, have someone else read your paper. Is this person
\nable to understand you completely? Can he or she read your entire paper through without
\ngetting stuck on a single sentence? If not, go back and smooth it out. In general terms, do
\nnot be content simply to get your paper out of your hands. Take pride in it. Clear writing
\nreflects clear thinking; and that, after all, is what you are really trying to show.
\nIII. How you\u2019ll be graded:
\nYou’ll be graded on three basic criteria:
\n1. How well do you understand the issues you’re writing about?
\n2. How good are the arguments you offer?
\n3. Is your writing clear and well-organized?
\nNOTE: THIS IS NOT A PAPER IN WHICH YOU MERELY OFFER YOUR
\nOPINION. You will of course tell me what you think about some philosophical issue in
\n6
\nthis paper. But it is not what you think that matters. Rather, what matters is why you think
\nwhat you think. Another way of stating this: it is not your opinion that matters. Rather,
\nwhat matters are the reasons you give in support of your opinion. I do not judge your
\npaper by whether I agree with its conclusion. Rather, I judge your paper by whether you
\ndo a good job arguing for your conclusion. More specifically, I\u2019ll be asking myself questions
\nlike these:
\no Do you clearly state what you’re trying to accomplish in your paper? Is it
\nobvious to the reader what your main thesis is?
\no Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make? Is it obvious to
\nthe reader what these arguments are?
\no Is the structure of your paper clear? For instance, is it clear what parts of
\nyour paper are expository, and what parts are your own positive
\ncontribution?
\no Is your prose simple, easy to read, and easy to understand?
\no Do you illustrate your claims with good examples? Do you explain your
\ncentral notions? Do you say exactly what you mean?
\no Do you present other philosophers’ views accurately and charitably?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Philosophy abortion Essay the author\u2019s argument for his or her position. Choose any one of the writers we have read on abortion (Warren, Marquis, Thomson) and do two things: 1) Fully explain, in detail, the author\u2019s argument for his or Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-428199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/428199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=428199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/428199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=428199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=428199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=428199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}