The Ethical Issues in Human Gene Patents in The Medical Field Essay

12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy
Paper
Philosophical writing is different from the writing you’ll be asked to do in other courses. Most of the
strategies described below will also serve you well when writing for other courses, but don’t
automatically assume that they all will. Nor should you assume that every writing guideline you’ve been
given by other teachers is important when you’re writing a philosophy paper. Some of those guidelines
are routinely violated in good philosophical prose (e.g., see the guidelines on grammar, below).
Contents
What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper?
Three Stages of Writing
Early Stages
Write a Draft
Rewrite, and Keep Rewriting
Minor Points
How You’ll Be Graded
What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper?
1. A philosophy paper consists of the reasoned defense of some claim
Your paper must offer an argument. It can’t consist in the mere report of your opinions, nor in a
mere report of the opinions of the philosophers we discuss. You have to defend the claims you
make. You have to offer reasons to believe them.
So you can’t just say:
My view is that P.
You must say something like:
My view is that P. I believe this because…
or:
I find that the following considerations…provide a convincing argument for
P.
Similarly, don’t just say:
Descartes says that Q.
Instead, say something like:
Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought-experiment will show
that Q is not true…
or:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
1/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, for the following
reasons…
There are a variety of things a philosophy paper can aim to accomplish. It usually begins by
putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then it goes on to do one or two of
the following:
Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good
Defend the argument or thesis against someone else’s criticism
Offer reasons to believe the thesis
Offer counter?examples to the thesis
Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis
Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more
plausible
Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they
do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis
Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true
Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection
No matter which of these aims you set for yourself, you have to explicitly present reasons for
the claims you make. Students often feel that since it’s clear to them that some claim is true, it
does not need much argument. But it’s very easy to overestimate the strength of your own position.
After all, you already accept it. You should assume that your audience does not already accept
your position; and you should treat your paper as an attempt to persuade such an audience. Hence,
don’t start with assumptions which your opponents are sure to reject. If you’re to have any chance
of persuading people, you have to start from common assumptions you all agree to.
2. A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and
straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it
People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper. The usual result of this is
a paper that’s hard to read, and which is full of inadequately defended and poorly explained claims.
So don’t be over?ambitious. Don’t try to establish any earth?shattering conclusions in your 5?6 page
paper. Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace.
3. Originality
The aim of these papers is for you to show that you understand the material and that you’re able to
think critically about it. To do this, your paper does have to show some independent thinking.
That doesn’t mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a
completely original contribution to human thought. There will be plenty of time for that later on.
An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward (see below), will be accurate when it attributes
views to other philosophers (see below), and will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts
we read. It need not always break completely new ground.
But you should try to come up with your own arguments, or your own way of elaborating or
criticizing or defending some argument we looked at in class. Merely summarizing what others
have said won’t be enough.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
2/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Three Stages of Writing
1. Early Stages
The early stages of writing a philosophy paper include everything you do before you sit down and write
your first draft. These early stages will involve writing, but you won’t yet be trying to write a complete
paper. You should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the
main argument you want to advance, and composing an outline.
Discuss the issues with others
As I said above, your papers are supposed to demonstrate that you understand and can think critically
about the material we discuss in class. One of the best ways to check how well you understand that
material is to try to explain it to someone who isn’t already familiar with it. I’ve discovered time and
again while teaching philosophy that I couldn’t really explain properly some article or argument I thought
I understood. This was because it was really more problematic or complicated than I had realized. You
will have this same experience. So it’s good to discuss the issues we raise in class with each other, and
with friends who aren’t taking the class. This will help you understand the issues better, and it will make
you recognize what things you still don’t fully understand.
It’s even more valuable to talk to each other about what you want to argue in your paper. When you have
your ideas worked out well enough that you can explain them to someone else, verbally, then you’re
ready to sit down and start making an outline.
Make an outline
Before you begin writing any drafts, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you
explain the various terms and positions you’ll be discussing? At what point should you present your
opponent’s position or argument? In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent? Do
any of the points you’re making presuppose that you’ve already discussed some other point, first? And so
on.
The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure. That is why it is important to think
about these questions before you begin to write.
I strongly recommend that you make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you’ll be presenting,
before you begin to write. This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper and get a
sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure that you’re in a position to say what your
main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper. When students get
stuck writing, it’s often because they haven’t yet figured out what they’re trying to say.
Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. (For a 5?page paper, a suitable outline
might take up a full page or even more.)
I find that making an outline is at least 80% of the work of writing a good philosophy paper. If you have
a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
3/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Start Work Early
Philosophical problems and philosophical writing require careful and extended reflection. Don’t wait
until two or three nights before the paper is due to begin. That is very stupid. Writing a good philosophy
paper takes a great deal of preparation.
You need to leave yourself enough time to think about the topic and write a detailed outline. Only then
should you sit down to write a complete draft. Once you have a complete draft, you should set it aside for
a day or two. Then you should come back to it and rewrite it. Several times. At least 3 or 4. If you can,
show it to your friends and get their reactions to it. Do they understand your main point? Are parts of
your draft unclear or confusing to them?
All of this takes time. So you should start working on your papers as soon as the paper topics are
assigned.
2. Write a Draft
Once you’ve thought about your argument, and written an outline for your paper, then you’re ready to sit
down and compose a complete draft.
Use simple prose
Don’t shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. Keep your sentences and paragraphs
short. Use familiar words. We’ll make fun of you if you use big words where simple words will do. These
issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose
language. Don’t write using prose you wouldn’t use in conversation: if you wouldn’t say it, don’t
write it.
You may think that since your TA and I already know a lot about this subject, you can leave out a lot of
basic explanation and write in a super?sophisticated manner, like one expert talking to another. I
guarantee you that this will make your paper incomprehensible.
If your paper sounds as if it were written for a third?grade audience, then you’ve probably achieved the
right sort of clarity.
In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and
complicated. Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult and frustrating. The authors in
question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So do not try to
emulate their writing styles.
Make the structure of your paper obvious
You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn’t have to exert
any effort to figure it out. Beat him over the head with it.
How can you do this?
First of all, use connective words, like:
because, since, given this argument
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
4/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently
nevertheless, however, but
in the first case, on the other hand
These will help your reader keep track of where your discussion is going. Be sure you use these words
correctly! If you say “P. Thus Q.” then you are claiming that P is a good reason to accept Q. You had
better be right. If you aren’t, we’ll complain. Don’t throw in a “thus” or a “therefore” to make your train of
thought sound better?argued than it really is.
Another way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader what you’ve
done so far and what you’re going to do next. You can say things like:
I will begin by…
Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to…
These passages suggest that…
I will now defend this claim…
Further support for this claim comes from…
For example…
These signposts really make a big difference. Consider the following two paper fragments:
…We’ve just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-
P. My first argument is…
My second argument that not-P is…
X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say
that…
However this response fails, because…
Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that…
This response also fails, because…
So we have seen that none of X’s replies to my argument that not-P succeed.
Hence, we should reject X’s claim that P.
I will argue for the view that Q.
There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly…
Secondly…
Thirdly…
The strongest objection to Q says…
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason…
Isn’t it easy to see what the structure of these papers is? You want it to be just as easy in your own papers.
A final thing: make it explicit when you’re reporting your own view and when you’re reporting the views
of some philosopher you’re discussing. The reader should never be in doubt about whose claims you’re
presenting in a given paragraph.
You can’t make the structure of your paper obvious if you don’t know what the structure of your paper is,
or if your paper has no structure. That’s why making an outline is so important.
Be concise, but explain yourself fully
To write a good philosophy paper, you need to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully.
These demands might seem to pull in opposite directions. (It’s as if the first said “Don’t talk too much,”
and the second said “Talk a lot.”) If you understand these demands properly, though, you’ll see how it’s
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
5/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
possible to meet them both.
We tell you to be concise because we don’t want you to ramble on about everything you know
about a given topic, trying to show how learned and intelligent you are. Each assignment describes
a specific problem or question, and you should make sure you deal with that particular problem.
Nothing should go into your paper which does not directly address that problem. Prune out
everything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth
than to try to cram in too much. One or two well?mapped paths are better than an impenetrable
jungle.
Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and
keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that
everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how
it is relevant. Don’t make your reader guess.
One thing I mean by “explain yourself fully” is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn’t
just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your
argument.
But “explain yourself fully” also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you’re
writing. It’s no good to protest, after we’ve graded your paper, “I know I said this, but what I
meant was…” Say exactly what you mean, in the first place. Part of what you’re being graded on is
how well you can do that.
Pretend that your reader has not read the material you’re discussing, and has not given the topic
much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will
force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as
explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said.
In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and
mean. He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed
to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s
stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite?sized pieces. And he’s
mean, so he’s not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of
more than one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you
understand the material you’re writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you’ll
probably get an A.
Use plenty of examples and definitions
It is very important to use examples in a philosophy paper. Many of the claims philosophers make are
very abstract and hard to understand, and examples are the best way to make those claims clearer.
Examples are also useful for explaining the notions that play a central role in your argument. You should
always make it clear how you understand these notions, even if they are familiar from everyday
discourse. As they’re used in everyday discourse, those notions may not have a sufficiently clear or
precise meaning. For instance, suppose you’re writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the
claim “A fetus is a person.” What do you mean by “a person”? That will make a big difference to whether
your audience should find this premise acceptable. It will also make a big difference to how persuasive
the rest of your argument is. By itself, the following argument is pretty worthless:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
6/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
A fetus is a person.
It’s wrong to kill a person.
Therefore, it’s wrong to kill a fetus.
For we don’t know what the author means by calling a fetus “a person.” On some interpretations of
“person,” it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it’s always
wrong to kill persons, in that sense of “person.” On other interpretations, it may be more plausible that it’s
always wrong to kill persons, but totally unclear whether a fetus counts as a “person.” So everything
turns here on what the author means by “person.” The author should be explicit about how he is using
this notion.
In a philosophy paper, it’s okay to use words in ways that are somewhat different from the ways they’re
ordinarily used. You just have to make it clear that you’re doing this. For instance, some philosophers use
the word “person” to mean any being which is capable of rational thought and self?awareness.
Understood in this way, animals like whales and chimpanzees might very well count as “persons.” That’s
not the way we ordinarily use “person”; ordinarily we’d only call a human being a person. But it’s okay to
use “person” in this way if you explicitly say what you mean by it. And likewise for other words.
Don’t vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety
If you call something “X” at the start of your paper, call it “X” all the way through. So, for
instance, don’t start talking about “Plato’s view of the self,” and then switch to talking about
“Plato’s view of the soul,” and then switch to talking about “Plato’s view of the mind.” If you mean
to be talking about the same thing in all three cases, then call it by the same name. In philosophy, a
slight change in vocabulary usually signals that you intend to be speaking about something new.
Using words with precise philosophical meanings
Philosophers give many ordinary?sounding words precise technical meanings. Consult the
handouts on Philosophical Terms and Methods to make sure you’re using these words correctly.
Don’t use words that you don’t fully understand.
Use technical philosophical terms only where you need them. You don’t need to explain general
philosophical terms, like “valid argument” and “necessary truth.” But you should explain any
technical terms you use which bear on the specific topic you’re discussing. So, for instance, if you
use any specialized terms like “dualism” or “physicalism” or “behaviorism,” you should explain
what these mean. Likewise if you use technical terms like “supervenience” and the like. Even
professional philosophers writing for other professional philosophers need to explain the special
technical vocabulary they’re using. Different people sometimes use this special vocabulary in
different ways, so it’s important to make sure that you and your readers are all giving these words
the same meaning. Pretend that your readers have never heard them before.
Presenting and assessing the views of others
If you plan to discuss the views of Philosopher X, begin by figuring out what his arguments or central
assumptions are. See my tips on How To Read a Philosophy Paper for some help doing this.
Then ask yourself: Are X’s arguments good ones? Are his assumptions clearly stated? Are they plausible?
Are they reasonable starting?points for X’s argument, or ought he have provided some independent
argument for them?
Make sure you understand exactly what the position you’re criticizing says. Students waste a lot of time
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
7/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
arguing against views that sound like, but are really different from, the views they’re supposed to be
assessing. Remember, philosophy demands a high level of precision. It’s not good enough for you merely
to get the general idea of somebody else’s position or argument. You have to get it exactly right. (In this
respect, philosophy is more like a science than the other humanities.) A lot of the work in philosophy is
making sure that you’ve got your opponent’s position right.
You can assume that your reader is stupid (see above). But don’t treat the philosopher or the views you’re
discussing as stupid. If they were stupid, we wouldn’t be looking at them. If you can’t see anything the
view has going for it, maybe that’s because you don’t have much experience thinking and arguing about
the view, and so you haven’t yet fully understood why the view’s proponents are attracted to it. Try harder
to figure out what’s motivating them.
Philosophers sometimes do say outrageous things, but if the view you’re attributing to a philosopher
seems to be obviously crazy, then you should think hard about whether he really does say what you think
he says. Use your imagination. Try to figure out what reasonable position the philosopher could have had
in mind, and direct your arguments against that.
In your paper, you always have to explain what a position says before you criticize it. If you don’t explain
what you take Philosopher X’s view to be, your reader cannot judge whether the criticism you offer of X
is a good criticism, or whether it is simply based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of X’s views.
So tell the reader what it is you think X is saying.
Don’t try to tell the reader everything you know about X’s views, though. You have to go on to offer your
own philosophical contribution, too. Only summarize those parts of X’s views that are directly
relevant to what you’re going to go on to do.
Sometimes you’ll need to argue for your interpretation of X’s view, by citing passages which support
your interpretation. It is permissible for you to discuss a view you think a philosopher might have held, or
should have held, though you can’t find any direct evidence of that view in the text. When you do this,
though, you should explicitly say so. Say something like:
Philosopher X doesn’t explicitly say that P, but it seems to me that he’s
assuming it anyway, because…
Quotations
When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your interpretation of some
philosopher’s views, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly. (Be sure to specify where the
passage can be found.) However, direct quotations should be used sparingly. It is seldom necessary
to quote more than a few sentences. Often it will be more appropriate to paraphrase what X says,
rather than to quote him directly. When you are paraphrasing what somebody else said, be sure to
say so. (And here too, cite the pages you’re referring to.)
Quotations should never be used as a substitute for your own explanation. And when you do quote
an author, you still have to explain what the quotation says in your own words. If the quoted
passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in more explicit, straightforward terms. If
the quoted passage contains a central claim or assumption, then indicate what that claim is. You
may want to give some examples to illustrate the author’s point. If necessary, you may want to
distinguish the author’s claim from other claims with which it might be confused.
Paraphrases
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
8/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Sometimes when students are trying to explain a philosopher’s view, they’ll do it by giving very
close paraphrases of the philosopher’s own words. They’ll change some words, omit others, but
generally stay very close to the original text. For instance, Hume begins his Treatise of Human
Nature as follows:
All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct
kinds, which I shall call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt
these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they
strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness.
Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name
impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions,
and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I
mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning.
Here’s an example of how you don’t want to paraphrase:
Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds,
impressions and ideas. The difference is in how much force and liveliness
they have in our thoughts and consciousness. The perceptions with the most
force and violence are impressions. These are sensations, passions, and
emotions. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning.
There are two main problems with paraphrases of this sort. In the first place, it’s done rather
mechanically, so it doesn’t show that the author understands the text. In the second place, since the
author hasn’t figured out what the text means well enough to express it in his own words, there’s a
danger that his paraphrase may inadvertently change the meaning of the text. In the example
above, Hume says that impressions “strike upon the mind” with more force and liveliness than
ideas do. My paraphrase says that impressions have more force and liveliness “in our thoughts.” It’s
not clear whether these are the same thing. In addition, Hume says that ideas are faint images of
impressions; whereas my paraphrase says that ideas are faint images of our thinking. These are not
the same. So the author of the paraphrase appears not to have understood what Hume was saying in
the original passage.
A much better way of explaining what Hume says here would be the following:
Hume says that there are two kinds of ‘perceptions,’ or mental states. He
calls these impressions and ideas. An impression is a very ‘forceful’ mental
state, like the sensory impression one has when looking at a red apple. An
idea is a less ‘forceful’ mental state, like the idea one has of an apple
while just thinking about it, rather than looking at it. It is not so clear
what Hume means here by ‘forceful.’ He might mean…
Anticipate objections
Try to anticipate objections to your view and respond to them. For instance, if you object to some
philosopher’s view, don’t assume he would immediately admit defeat. Imagine what his comeback might
be. How would you handle that comeback?
Don’t be afraid of mentioning objections to your own thesis. It is better to bring up an objection yourself
than to hope your reader won’t think of it. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or
overcome. Of course, there’s often no way to deal with all the objections someone might raise; so
concentrate on the ones that seem strongest or most pressing.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
9/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
What happens if you’re stuck?
Your paper doesn’t always have to provide a definite solution to a problem, or a straight yes or no answer
to a question. Many excellent philosophy papers don’t offer straight yes or no answers. Sometimes they
argue that the question needs to be clarified, or that certain further questions need to be raised.
Sometimes they argue that certain assumptions of the question need to be challenged. Sometimes they
argue that certain answers to the question are too easy, that is, they won’t work. Hence, if these papers are
right, the question will be harder to answer than we might previously have thought. These are all
important and philosophically valuable results.
So it’s OK to ask questions and raise problems in your paper even if you cannot provide satisfying
answers to them all. You can leave some questions unanswered at the end of the paper. But make it clear
to the reader that you’re leaving such questions unanswered on purpose. And you should say something
about how the question might be answered, and about what makes the question interesting and relevant to
the issue at hand.
If something in a view you’re examining is unclear to you, don’t gloss it over. Call attention to the
unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Explain why it’s not clear which of
these interpretations is correct.
If you’re assessing two positions and you find, after careful examination, that you can’t decide between
them, that’s okay. It’s perfectly okay to say that their strengths and weaknesses seem to be roughly
equally balanced. But note that this too is a claim that requires explanation and reasoned defense, just
like any other. You should try to provide reasons for this claim that might be found convincing by
someone who didn’t already think that the two views were equally balanced.
Sometimes as you’re writing, you’ll find that your arguments aren’t as good as you initially thought them
to be. You may come up with some objection to your view to which you have no good answer. Don’t
panic. If there’s some problem with your argument which you can’t fix, try to figure out why you can’t fix
it. It’s okay to change your thesis to one you can defend. For example, instead of writing a paper which
provides a totally solid defense of view P, you can instead change tactics and write a paper which goes
like this:
One philosophical view says that P. This is a plausible view, for the following
reasons…
However, there are some reasons to be doubtful whether P. One of these reasons is
X. X poses a problem for the view that P because…
It is not clear how the defender of P can overcome this objection.
Or you can write a paper which goes:
One argument for P is the ‘Conjunction Argument,’ which goes as follows…
At first glance, this is a very appealing argument. However, this argument is
faulty, for the following reasons…
One might try to repair the argument, by…
But these repairs will not work, because…
I conclude that the Conjunction Argument does not in fact succeed in establishing
P.
Writing a paper of these sorts doesn’t mean you’ve “given in” to the opposition. After all, neither of these
papers commits you to the view that not?P. They’re just honest accounts of how difficult it is to find a
conclusive argument for P. P might still be true, for all that.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
10/15
12/27/2015
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
3. Rewrite, and Keep Rewriting
Now you’ve written a complete draft of your paper. Set the draft aside for a day or two.
Then com