Tackling the Philosophy Essay - Comprehensive Notes

Tackling the Philosophy Essay, A Student Guide

• Edition One, October 2013
• Copyright © 2013 Claire Benn, Christina Cameron, Amanda Cawston, and Shyane Siriwardena.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
  • Free to copy, reuse, distribute, and adapt for non-commercial purposes with attribution.
  • Email: ttpestudentguide@gmail.com for collaboration or issues.

Table of Contents

• From the Authors
• Analysing the Question
  • Question #1
  • Question #2
  • Question #3
  • Question #4
• Introductions
  • Troubleshooting – Thesis Statements
  • Sample Introductions
    • Intro #1
    • Intro #2
    • Intro #3
    • Intro #4
• Essay Outlines
  • Outline #1
  • Sample Outline #2(A) – Short
  • Sample Outline #2(B) – Detailed
• Annotated Model Essay
• Suggested Essay Templates
  • Template #1
  • Template #2
• Additional Resources
• Contact the Authors

From the Authors

• Guide originated from an essay-writing workshop.
• Handbook for philosophical writing basics.
• Focus is solely on essay skills.
• Topics in examples are for guidance on the essay-writing process, regardless of the content.
• Guide is not a one-stop solution but addresses common mistakes in philosophical essays.
• Supervisors, Directors of Studies, and college tutors are valuable resources.
• Guide is a starting point.

Analysing the Question

• Understanding the question is essential before writing.
• Demonstrates considerations for unpacking and answering essay questions.

Question #1: “Can egoism be both coherent and interesting?”

• Framed as a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, but requires detailed explanation.
• Asks whether coherence and interestingness are problematic for egoism.
• Consider if all coherent egoism versions are uninteresting, or vice versa.
• Determine necessity vs. contingency of this conflict.
• Central Words
  • Egoism:
    • Specification is crucial.
    • Definition needed at the start; more detail may be required.
    • Different versions exist; argue if one can be coherent and interesting while another cannot.
    • Define/describe each version and provide a general definition of egoism.
  • Interesting:
    • Define what makes egoism interesting/uninteresting.
    • Trivial or definitional truths may be uninteresting.
    • Plausible theories or genuine psychological possibilities may be interesting.
    • Incoherence may equal uninteresting.
    • Argument will hinge on the meaning of ‘interesting’.
    • Specify criteria early.
• Less Central Words
  • Coherent:
    • Generally well-understood; brief definition suffices for clarity.

QUESTION #2: 'All art is ethically committed, whether overtly or covertly.' Discuss.

• "Discuss" questions require taking a position.
• State agreement or disagreement, based on understanding of terms.
• Consider restrictions or related statements.
• Central words
  • All:
    • Consider art for which the claim is least plausible.
    • If the claim isn't true of absolutely all art, move to restricted versions (e.g., narrative artworks).
  • Ethically committed:
    • The central notion requiring clarification.
    • Consider different ways art can be ethically committed.
      • Explicit moral claims.
      • Evoking ‘moral’ emotions (admiration, blame, sympathy).
    • Is ethical commitment tied to content, or can it arise in other ways (e.g., music)?
  • Overt and Covert:
    • Address the distinction in the answer.
    • Link previous suggestions to overt/covert ethical commitment.
• Less central words
  • Art:
    • Debate the definition of art, but avoid detailed discussion.
    • Use paradigm examples (Chopin, Dostoevsky, Turner, Shakespeare).

QUESTION #3: “'Descartes argues that the immaterial mind is distinct from our material bodies. But, the immaterial can have no causal effect on the material. Therefore, we must reject theories of immaterial minds.' Discuss.”

• 'Discuss' questions require arguing for agreement or disagreement.

• The statement is presented as an argument, providing another layer for disagreement.

• Disagree with premises, conclusion, or argument form.

• Clarify problematic aspects and reasons.

  • Challenge Descartes' argument.
  • Dispute the causal gap between immaterial and material.
  • Grant premises but question the conclusion.

• Don't just state invalidity of argument.

• Discuss missing premises and their issues.

• Address reasons to reject material bodies and force rejection of immaterial minds, or question the mind-body causal requirement.

• Engage explicitly with the argument given, even if agreeing with the conclusion.

QUESTION #4: “Does the possibility that we are dreaming undermine our right to claim that we have genuine knowledge of the existence of an external world?”

• The question contains key notions that invite analysis.
• 'Possibility' and 'dreaming' point to a skeptical argument; 'existence of the external world' indicates threatened knowledge.
• Start by explaining the argument and its threat to said knowledge.
• Address other knowledge that may be more successfully threatened, but after addressing the main problem.
• Focus on the question asked, avoiding tangents.
• Analyze 'genuine knowledge'.
• Consider how different accounts of knowledge affect the answer.
• Take a stance on the best conception of knowledge if different conceptions dictate different answers.
• Also, consider what gives us the right to claim genuine knowledge.
• Examine if knowledge and the right to claim it always coincide.

Introductions

• Troubleshooting – Thesis Statements

Lack of Argument/Position

• Problem: Thesis only compares/observes/describes without taking a position.

• A thesis should function as the conclusion of an argument and follow from premises.

• Example: "In this paper, I will compare different theories of personal identity—specifically those that identify persons with minds, and those that identify persons with bodies.”

Infeasible/Unmanageable Scope

• Problem: Thesis is too broad to prove within the essay's limitations.

• Restrict scope to a specific argument, author, or objection.

• Example: "I will argue that utilitarianism is right."

• Note: Thesis statement can be longer than a single sentence to accomplish scope-restriction.

Colloquial Language/Imprecise Word Choice

• Problem: Using colloquial language or imprecise terms.

• Use formal language focused on arguments and conclusions.

• Example: "I feel that causation cannot be a genuine relation since it is merely an idea formed by induction."

• Avoid words like 'feel'; instead, use 'argue', 'demonstrate', 'show'.

• Avoid terms with technical philosophic meanings, if that is not what you mean to say such as, ‘(in)valid’, ‘logical, ‘possible, ‘probable’.

Boring

• Problem: The conclusion is trivially true due to definitional stipulation answering.

• Here, the terms have been framed in such a way that the conclusion is plainly obvious.

• Example: "I will argue that if we define right action as that which leads to what is good, then we can be confident that right action will always lead to what is good"

Fence-Sitting

• Problem: Thesis doesn't take a firm position; needs to present a clear case.

• Example: "I will argue that it is unclear whether or not utilitarianism is a good theory."

• Fence-sitting is a risky strategy; be sure to answer the question.

SAMPLE INTRODUCTIONS

• Examples of introductory paragraphs with annotations identifying strengths and weaknesses.

INTRO #1

• Question: Does the argument from evil prove the nonexistence of God?

ORIGINAL VERSION

• Includes unnecessary information and broad claims.
• Uninformative explication of what the essay will achieve
• Massive in its scale

REWRITTEN VERSION

• Informative opening sentence.
• Brief summary of the problem.
• Indication of scope.
• Specific material to be covered.
• Details about the defenses to be considered.
• Clear indication of the argument the author will be making.
• Precise thesis.

INTRO #2

• Question: In his dialogues, Plato never answers the questions he poses. Discuss.

• Context-setting.

• General direction of argument.

• How the author is going to achieve his/her objective.

• Specific thesis statement.

• Roadmap, including details of what will be achieved in each section.

INTRO #3

• Question: Are necessity, analyticity, and a prioricity coextensive?

ORIGINAL VERSION

• Terms are often used interchangeably due to certain factors in their linking together.
• It can be argued they are not identical in connotations, as they are used on different levels of enquiry.
• The extent of their meaning being the same has been hotly debated, especially with regard to the universality of logical laws and to possible counterexamples to the assumption that they are coextensive.

REWRITTEN VERSION

• Explication of what is of importance when answering this question and outlines the areas where the answer to the question might have broader implications.
• This sets up the success criteria: it states what must be shown in order for the question to be answered.
• This indicates that definitions and examples of the important concepts related to the question will be articulated later on.
• This details the types of argument and counter-argument the author will be using to defend her claim.
• Clear thesis statement which answers the question.
• Indication of the wider issue addressed and the implications of the conclusion considered.

INTRO #4

• Question: ‘Genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. Therefore, genetic engineering should be impermissible’ Discuss.

• Setting up the problem.

• Identifying a problematic (ambiguous) term on which the problem hangs.

• Explaining how the author intends to approach the question, given the complications with the ambiguous term ‘eugenics’ picked out above.

• Clarification of specific approach to the question.

• Beginning of roadmap. Explaining that the author will first offer an argument for the premise stated (i.e. “the value we place on autonomy […] may […] lead us to the conclusion that we should allow much genetic engineering at the request of parents.”)

• Statement of thesis. Note that the thesis is limited in scope. The author flags the fact that his/her thesis depends on a notion of acceptability, and acknowledges that this is a vague notion. The ‘although’ indicates that the author takes this to limit the scope of the case being made.

Essay Outlines

OUTLINE #1

• Question: ‘Philosophy will best prepare you for life’. Discuss

• Analysis: define terms

• Thesis: Evaluated as it stands, this statement is incredibly strong, and likely false. Considered however within the context in which it is likely to be expressed, it can be interpreted as making a weaker, but true claim.

• Outline:

  1. Introduction:

     • Context and Implicit meaning
       • Statement seems strong when considered alone
       • Statements are made in specific contexts
     • Thesis and roadmap

  2. Definitions or setup

     • Legitimacy of interpretations in context
     • Implicit meaning of the statement

  3. Argument for the thesis

     • Undergraduate degrees offer practical skills, factual knowledge, and reasoning habits

     • More preparation areas are better

     • Philosophy provides all three kinds of preparation

     • Philosophy best prepares you for life

  4. Objection 1

     • Greater variety of skills is better than specializing, even in the modern economy

  5. Response to Objection 1

     • Objection misinterprets prepare for life to equal valued by employers

  6. Objection 2

     • Philosophy degrees don’t necessarily provide all three areas of preparation. Studying match logic doesn’t qualify as varied. a varied education if the student focused on math logic only.

  7. Response to Objection 2

     • It’s a good point, empirically this is not a worry. Most undergrad philosophy degrees require a variety of philosophical topics and approaches.

  8. Conclusion

     • Qualifications or what is still open
       • This argument depends on a particular understanding of the statement.
       • Depends on contingent features of modern philosophy undergraduate degrees
     • Restate the thesis

SAMPLE OUTLINE #2(a) – Short

• Question: Does the value of autonomy support the claim that genetic engineering should be available on request?

• THESIS: The value of autonomy, as it is used to argue against authoritarian eugenics, and as it is used in justifying the freedom we give parents in raising their children, supports the principle that some, but not all, uses of genetic engineering should be available to parents on request.

• Traditional Eugenics v. Genetic Engineering

  • What is common to both: the intention to affect the kinds of people who will be born

  • Explanation of traditional (a.k.a “authoritarian”) eugenics

  • How traditional eugenics is morally questionable

    • Section Conclusion: if genetic engineering is similar to traditional eugenics in these respects, genetic engineering should not be available for governments to use regardless of the wishes of prospective parents

• Arguments in Favour of Genetic Engineering

  • ARGUMENT 1: Genetic engineering need not be similar to authoritarian eugenics

  • ARGUMENT 2: Parents currently have the freedom to affect their children via environmental factors, and so they should be allowed to affect their children via other means as well. This includes genetic engineering.

    • OBJECTION: there is a principled difference between affecting via environmental factors and affecting via genetic engineering.
    • REBUTTAL to OBJECTION: Objector’s claim is false!
    • Thus, as there is no principled distinction, genetic engineering should be available at the parent’s request

• Acceptable v. Unacceptable Uses of Genetic Engineering

  • We have reason to think some uses of genetic engineering seem unacceptable. SO, need a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable uses

  • PROPOSAL 1 (Buchanan): uses of genetic engineering must be constrained by the child’s right to an open future

    • PROBLEMS for Proposal 1:
      • what increases the options open to a child is likely to be a function of the society in which they live
      • (from Agar) may yield good internal distributions of genetic goods but does not guarantee good social distributions of genetic goods

  • COUNTERPROPOSAL (Agar): the goods of genetic intervention should be allocated to individuals in such a way that they will improve the prospects associated with every possible life plan – especially the worst of potential plan

    • Case for counterproposal
    • PROBLEMS for counterproposal
      • Does not fully explain what is meant by the worst of potential life plan
      • Does not explain which possible life plans parents must consider all available plans OR all plausible plans without genetic engineering
      • Not clear whether parents and society will be able to distinguish between good and bad life plans when making these decisions

SAMPLE OUTLINE #2(b) – Detailed

• THESIS: The value of autonomy, as it is used to argue against authoritarian eugenics, and as it is used in justifying the freedom we give parents in raising their children, supports the principle that some, but not all, uses of genetic engineering should be available to parents on request.

• Traditional Eugenics v. Genetic Engineering

  • What is common to both: intention to affect the kinds of people who will be born
  • Explanation of traditional (a.k.a “authoritarian”) eugenics:
    • Restriction on which people are allowed to reproduce
    • Must follow central government policy on characteristics to be selected
  • Traditional eugenics is morally questionable because:
    • Restricts reproductive autonomy
    • The government may use a societal perspective to define the best people to produce.
    • ignores perspective of individuals produced
    • The government may make decisions based on prejudiced views about what constitutes a good life
  • Section Conclusion: if genetic engineering is similar to traditional eugenics in these respects, genetic engineering should not be available for governments to use regardless of the wishes of prospective parents

• Arguments in Favour of Genetic Engineering

  • ARGUMENT 1: Genetic engineering need not be similar to authoritarian eugenics

    • Can instead be a system wherein…
      • everyone will be able to reproduce who wants to
      • parents will decide which characteristics to select themselves based on their own values
      • parents will then be helped to put this into practice using our new and accurate scientific knowledge
    • By principle of reproductive autonomy (used to argue against authoritarian eugenics) this kind of genetic engineering should be allowed

  • ARGUMENT 2: Parents currently have the freedom to affect their children via environmental factors, and so they should be allowed to affect their children via other means as well. This includes genetic engineering.

    • OBJECTION: there is a principled difference between affecting via environmental factors and affecting via genetic engineering. The claim is false!
      • Environmental factors change accidental features of a person. Genetic engineering changes essential features of a person
    • REBUTTAL to OBJECTION: Objector’s claim is false!
      • Environmental interventions can alter phenotype and may therefore alter many of the things we take as most essential in our concept of self, whereas many genetic interventions do not involve altering such essential characteristics. Changing a person’s eye colour cannot be thought of as producing a new person.
    • Thus, as there is no principled distinction, genetic engineering should be available at the parent’s request.

• Acceptable v. Unacceptable Uses of Genetic Engineering

  • We have reason to think some uses of genetic engineering seem unacceptable. E.g
    • Parents don’t always know or care what is best for their children
    • Parents can also be prejudiced in their opinions about the good life
    • Parents should not be allowed to impose their values unfairly on their children
  • So, need a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable uses
  • PROPOSAL 1 (Buchanan): uses of genetic engineering must be constrained by the child’s right to an open future
    • PROBLEMS for Proposal 1.
      • what increases the options open to a child is likely to be a function of the society in which they live
      • (from Agar) may yield good internal distributions of genetic goods but does not guarantee good social distributions of genetic goods.

• COUNTERPROPOSAL (Agar): the goods of genetic intervention should be allocated to individuals in such a way that they will improve the prospects associated with every possible life plan – especially the worst off potential plan
  * Case for Counterproposal
  * it is unlikely that we will ever be able to predict which life plan a child will most want to choose
  * parents will not know exactly what life plans will be available when their child grows up
  * Therefore. Parents should not try to predict which life plans their child will want to choose and should not risk closing off any possibilities through genetic engineering
  * PROBLEMS for Counterproposal
  * does not fully explain what is meant by the worst off potential life plan
  * does not explain which possible life plans parents must consider all available plans OR all plausible plans without genetic engineering
  * both seem stronger than the restrictions placed on environmental interventions
  * So need some further justification for why it should be put on genetic interventions in particular
  * It is not clear whether parents and society will be able to distinguish between good and bad life plans when making those decisions
  * if must consider ALL life plans, the constrain is unreasonable
  * if not, seems like parents would be imposing their own values on their children runs the risk of being to an unacceptable extent

Annotated Model Essay

• Exemplary undergraduate supervision essay with annotations on successful elements
• Demonstrates supervisor expectations in essays
• Discusses questions, indications, potential dissimilarities and potential counterarguments.

Suggested Essay Templates

TEMPLATE #1

1.  Introduction
2.  The problem or topic
3.  The first response to 2.
4.  Subsequent responses
5.  Conclusion
6.  Bibliography

TEMPLATE #2

• Introduction (200 words)

  • Briefly introduce the problem and topic.
  • Thesis statement
  • Roadmap

• Exegesis (600 words)

  • Descriptive; describe the argument or debate, focusing on relevant aspects.

• Argument (600 words)

  • Present your view and your argument – challenge the argument described in the exegesis or defend a position.

• Objection (400 words)

  • Consider a good objection that requires careful development.
  • Convince the reader that the argument needs to address the objection to be successful.

• Response (0 words)

• Conclusion (100-200 words)

  • Remind the reader of what you have argued for
  • Point out what you haven’t argued and what your argument doesn’t show.

Additional Resources

• General comments and helpful tips on essay writing.
• Links to helpful undergrad handbooks, writing guides, and books on how to write philosophy well.

Contact the Authors

• ttpestudentguide@gmail.com for concerns, comments, or questions.
• Feedback on this ongoing project is welcome.