This is a summary of a more elaborate moral philosophy writing tutor

Your Goal: The point of writing an essay in this course is to respond carefully and critically to themes in the philosophical tradition. While it is possible to do this from scratch, it is much more common at the introductory level to frame a view in reaction to the readings. Note that responding critically does not mean disagreeing. You are welcome to record your departures from the authors we have been considering. You are also welcome to expand on or slightly alter a point made by a philosopher.

Start Early:  Put your thoughts on paper long before you expect to turn in the assignment. At this stage, do not worry about your prose.  Have a conversation about your ideas with someone in class.  After sleeping on it, return to the argument to see if it still convinces you.

Outline: Start with an outline of the paper. Even a rough map of where you are going is better than none at all.

Example:


I. Introduction
II. State Hobbes' social contract argument
III. Offer my objection bases on altruism
IV. Consider a possible reply by Hobbes (e.g., that data about altruism is illusory)
V. Give a counter-reply to Hobbes' move.

You may even divide your paper up according to your outline, with section headings in the text.

Introductory paragraph:  Do not write an introductory paragraph until the paper is in its final form.

Revision: Expect to revise the paper several times before you turn it in.

Computer vs. Hand-written vs. Typed: Some people compose their papers on computer. Others write on paper first, and then type out the finished product on computer or typewriter. Follow your own habit here, but composing directly on a typewriter is usually not a good idea.

Voice: In contemporary philosophy, there is roughly a fifty-fifty split between papers in the first person and in the third person. Generally, the third person voice reads more formally. Therefore, if you adopt the first person voice in your paper, be extra careful that you do not lapse into an informal, chatty style. Writing in the second person is almost invariably awful. Attempt this voice at your peril.

These are inappropriate:

I was talking to my friend Hector on the phone the other day, and between us we came up with a great objection to Mill's argument for utilitarianism.

You are going to be absolutely convinced by the argument in the paper against Mill's utilitarianism.

These are acceptable:

In this paper, I will argue that Mill's argument for utilitarianism fails.

This paper offers a refutation of Mill's argument for utilitarianism.

Dialogue: Although it is much much harder to write anything of philosophical substance in a dialogue, feel welcome to try your hand at writing in a dialogue format. Take care not to include useless conversational filler between the participants in the dialogue. It may seem to you that some famous writers of philosophical dialogues (like Plato) include a great deal of extraneous material. Even if you are right about this — and that is by no means assured since what might seem extraneous to you may well be philosophically relevant to scholars — it is not an invitation to do the same in your own dialogues. Given your space constraints, you will need to make certain that every single line in your dialogue achieves something in the direction of your philosophical end. In general, I will be more demanding in assessing dialogues since they offer so many opportunities to go wrong. Remember, these assignments are not exercises in creative writing.

Ad hominem arguments: These are arguments that attack the person rather than the substance of her or his views. Insulting comments of any kind directed at the author of a philosophical view are to be avoided at all costs.

Spelling, Punctuation & Grammar: These are not the principal virtues to aspire to in a philosophical paper, but they are still virtues. Poor spelling and grammar will detract from the authority of your writing. It often helps to read your papers aloud to arrive at smooth sentence structure. Have a friend look at the paper for errors. You will not be graded on the mechanics of your writing, but if there are significant errors, I will have you rewrite the paper with corrections.

Names: The first time you mention an author, use her or his full name. All subsequent times use last name only. You may refer to authors in the canon (e.g., Hume, Nietzsche, Arendt) by last name only if you wish.

Gender: Until recently the masculine pronoun was generic. We would write, "A student must prepare his notes carefully to be successful on the quiz," even though many students are women. In the academy, this is changing. (Indeed, many of us are hoping that it has changed.) You may, of course, endorse any stance you wish on this matter, but I urge you to think about the gender of your pronouns and the "genderness" of your paper. Writing is sometimes powerful in its content.  Writing is also sometimes powerful in implicit ways.  Make sure that your papers express your considered views on gender issues.

Rhetorical questions: It is sometimes tempting to move an essay along by asking rhetorical questions. For example, you will sometimes see questions like, "Is valuing justice for its own sake really possible?" or "Has Nietzsche considered all of the explanations for the origin of Christianity?" You should use this device extremely sparingly. The danger is that you may end up having your questions do all of your argumentative work for you. In other words, you will be relying on your reader to supply the arguments herself when she tries to answer your questions. Since your responsibility is to give the best arguments you can, relying on questions to motivate the themes of your essay runs the risk of causing you to shirk your duty. If you do ask a question in your paper, your own answer to it should be clear and obvious in the essay. You should never ask several questions in a row. Write instead in a direct and assertive way.

Contractions: Avoid them.

Humor: Save your attempts at humor for another setting.

First Sentence: NEVER start a paper by saying something like, "Since the beginning of time, man has grappled with the philosophical basis of morality." This maneuver is vacuous, clichéd, and silly. Your first sentence should jump right into the subject matter

Example:


In Book II of the Treatise, Hume argues that morals cannot be derived from reason because reason cannot produce actions. I will show that Hume is incorrect. That is, I will show that reason can lead an agent to actively produce a distinctly reason-based belief. Thus, the possibilty that morality derives from reason remains open.

Sweeping Generalizations About Philosophers or Philosophy: Many students are tempted to include in their papers generalizations that appear to increase the erudition of their work. For example, there is the temptation to include in a paper on Plato a sentence that describes him as "The father of Western philosophy" or to say that "Kant's Copernican Revolution in philosophy inaugurated the modern era of theorizing about the mind." While this sort of writing may have a place in journalism or for the script of a PBS series, and while your professors may offer stage-setting generalizations like this in lecture, they are inappropriate for your scholarly papers.

Dates, Political Events, and Biographical Details: It is also unnecessary to include the kinds of detail that might be found in an encyclopedia entry for the philosopher or philosophical topic you are writing on. You need not mention the philosopher's date of birth or death, or the date of the publication of the work you are dealing with, or the cultural or political events that surround its publication. Of course, if your paper is about the connection between philosophical themes and cultural or political events, then you will want to introduce that material. Please keep in mind, however, that you are very very unlikely to say anything interesting or convincing about the broad topics that this approach invites. There likely will never be a good five page paper written in an introductory class about, e.g., "The Influence of Religion and Economics on the Philosophy of Hobbes and Mill."

Lots of transition sentences: Always go out of your way to make sure the reader is "on board." At then end of the sections of your paper, be sure to tell the reader what you have achieved so far and what you intend to do next. Do this between every paragraph if necessary. Someone should be able to read the first and last sentence of each paragraph (and nothing more) and know what your paper is about. Of course, I will actually read the whole thing.

Sympathy: For any philosophical view you are considering, offer the most sympathetic reconstruction of it that you can. This is a crucial component of honest engagement with ideas.  If the author is unclear, give the best possible case for the view (even if you disagree with it). You are allowed and encouraged to make note of the author's lack of clarity in your paper. For instance, you might write

[A quotation from the original text]. Here, Jackson seems to be claiming that there is a natural sentiment toward immorality and injustice and a conflicting sentiment directed toward cooperation. This seems the best interpretation of the passage, so I will endorse it in my discussion.

Quoted material:  Never offer a quotation without telling the reader how you interpret the passage and why you included it.

The Dictionary: The dictionary is a useful tool, but it is not a philosophical authority. Do not, therefore, put in your paper sentences like, "Webster's New American Heritage Dictionary defines hedonism as the view that pleasure is the highest good of human existence."

Originality: Where I ask you to produce an original view, it will not do to merely repeat what some other philosopher has said. There will likely be someone in history who has given the same argument you have, but I want your version in your own voice.

Anecdotes: Keep personal anecdotes to a minimum.

Paraphrases:  If you paraphrase an idea from another source, footnote it as if it were a quotation.

Quotations: You may quote sections from the work(s) that you are considering in your paper. Be sure to specify the page number. It is often useful to include a few quotations to assure the reader that you are sensitive to the text, but too many are distracting. I recommend no more than two or three quotations in a five page paper.

References: Include references at the end of your paper where needed (when you quote out of a book or article). Use whatever style you are comfortable with. My favorite is the American Psychological Association journal style.

Examples:


Rummelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smolensky, P. (1990). Tensor product variable binding and representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 159-216.

Ideas due to Others: If someone gives you an idea, be sure to credit her in a footnote.  For example, you may simply write "This idea is due to Professor Jana Sawicki, in conversation."

Last Paragraph: Do not succumb to the temptation of writing a lengthy summary paragraph at the end of your paper. Avoid coy admissions of fallibility such as, "The ideas in this paper may be right, but who knows?" or "No matter what I argue, inquiry into the human condition will go on into eternity." Just end it.

Cover Page: There is no need to use a cover page or a fancy binding (number of students x number of papers = waste). The first page of your paper should have your name and the date near the top.

Numbering: Number each page.

Copies: Keep a copy of your paper for yourself.