Description When I say short essays, I do not mean a sentence. Nor do I mean a single paragraph. Never write a single paragraph. Although I will detail this more below, any essay includes an intro, body, and conclusion. Although that may sound like 3 paragraphs, since the body of your essay makes various, any essay is many paragraphs. Given all this, never write less than 5 paragraphs. More is always better. Small paragraphs are much clearer. See the sample essay by Donald Davidson. About short essay length, the minimum word length is 1000 words. Even this, however, is often not enough. Always ask yourself: did I really address all the aspects of the prompt? If you have not done so, you are not done. Chat GPT policy: In these modern times, we have to deal with this program. To combat the trend of students using Chat, I am imposing what I call the three-quote rule. What is this? In short essays, you have a choice of prompts. You answer one. All prompts, though, make use of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Practical Ethics, or Moral Tribes. Now, I know the page numbers of all three of these. For instance, in Moral Tribes, Greene talks what he calls biased fairness on pp. 84-85. Given this, the three-quote rule is as follows: In each short essay, you must cite at least three quotes (i.e. real sentences, not just page numbers) from the text, along with the relevant page numbers. Whenever you use a secondary source, moreover, you must quote at least once from it. So, that means that you must cite 3 sentences or more in quotes from the text, and/or one from the secondary sources. Since Chat GPT does not have access to the specific page numbers of any of these sources (and I know these page numbers), this means that this policy is fair (or unfair) to everyone, equally. I will know if you have read our three texts, and the secondary sources. Never upload a file. When submitting short essays, never upload something from Google Docs that I have to ask permission to see. Nor send me a Pdf. When I open your Canvas submission, I should never see a file (e.g. some file that says Hobbesversion3), but rather should see your text. Remember, mere files that I have to open will not get any credit. Always save your short essays (e.g. create a file for your essays), just in case there is a problem (e.g. with Canvas). Create a file that has all your work in it. Remember that I cannot just believe things like “…but I submitted it” without proof. Next, here are a few important points about the form of philosophy essays. In what follows, I will address how philosophy is written, the structure of argumentative essays, and the make some points about our prompts. Now, just a few caveats. Saying "I will be discussing..." and things like that are not the same. Sentences like this introduce a survey of ideas, not an argument. Similarly, just adding “I believe” without then saying why is a statement, and reads like a sermon. Again, saying “it can be said” or “it has been argued that” may indicate that someone has argued something, but it does not indicate that you are doing so. Rather, by using the first person, you are directly saying that you, as you, are making points, evaluating them, considering objections, etc. The introductory paragraph introduces your argument. It helps to think of your introductory paragraph as a sales pitch to the reader. Given this, you cannot just say you will “argue about pros and cons of utilitarianism,” since that would not say what is coming. Nor can you say “I will be discussing” x, y, or z, since that does not introduce an argument. Instead, you have to say “I will argue that” or something similar. Indeed, to convince the reading to continue reading, you have to say what you will argue. In other words, the reader has to envision how the argument will go, and be interested. This is the point of the introductory paragraph. Second, the body of the essay elaborates on the points, and the place to consider objections. Remember that our prompts are fairly complex. Sometimes, in the prompts, I ask you to consider not just the views of Aristotle, Mill, Singer, etc. but specific objections. Given all this, the body of the paper could be 3 paragraphs, but could also be 10. It depends on what you are arguing, or responding to. However, when considering any argument (e.g. about some ethical theory), you will want to do the following. Set up what you will say, which is a matter of fairly summarizing. Evaluate this, which is the important bit. Crucially, setting any argument up is only a precursor to evaluating it. Indeed, doing all this will require a few paragraphs at least. Important hint: small paragraphs, especially in the body of the essay, are much clearer to the reader. Moreover, when you split up paragraphs, it is easier for you to keep your points in order, and not mix them up. Since you want to be clear, all this structure is important. Third, all persuasive essays have a separate conclusion paragraph. Students often omit this step. Now, conclusions do not exist to offer pithy words of wisdom. For instance, saying “Epicurus shows that we should all pursue our dreams” is not relevant. Instead, conclusions summarize your arguments, point by point. In the conclusion, thus, you should say something like "In this essay, I have shown that..." and then recapitulate what you have said. In general, the reader should be able to read only your introduction and then your conclusion and get the shorthand of all your points, one by one. The two paragraphs should match. Indeed, the point of the concluding paragraph is to remind the reader (one last time) of all the points he or she has just read. Philosophy is almost always written in the first person. What does this mean? Well, you may have been misinformed. Contrary to what some professors say, the first person is not mere opinion, nor subjective. Actually, it is the opposite of both. The most noteworthy persuasive essays- again, see the student and professional samples- are written in the first person. What is the first person? The first person is arguing, and taking responsibility for what you say. In terms of these essays, here is what to do. In the introductory paragraph, you can say “I will argue” a, b, and c. What you are doing here is introducing an argument, in the way that an attorney (e.g. during opening statements) lays out what his or her case will be. Without doing this, the reader does not know what to expect, nor do they have a reason to continue reading. Moreover, throughout the essay, when you want to be clear (e.g. emphasize something), use the first person. For instance, after presenting some position, you might say “Although I think this argument is plausible, I also have a few reservations," and then you can say what these are. By doing this, you are indicating what is important, and why. Lastly, you should always use the first person in your conclusion to summarize what you have argued. In other words, you should always say “In this essay, I have shown that” and then recapitulate. Indeed, this gives the reader a summary, and helps him or her remember the main points. In a nutshell, that is how the first person works. In essence, the first person makes it clear where you stand, what you think is important, and your degree of conviction (or lack of it). All this nuance is crucial. Lastly, consider how difficult is to write using the third person. When you use the third person, you summarize. For instance, you may say “Mill argues that we should measure happiness by estimating qualities o pleasure.” But what happens when you want to evaluate this? If you continue with the third person, you may say something like “It can be argued that we cannot measure pleasure in any way.” Note that whoever is saying this is not you. Moreover, it is in the passive voice. It other words, when you try to argue in the third person, you make it difficult on yourself to include the nuance mentioned in the last paragraph. So, unless you just summarizing what others say (which is not what we are doing here) the first person is much better. Philosophy essays, no matter how long, all have a particular structure. What is this? Well, almost everyone knows that argumentative essays have an introductory paragraph, a body (of a few paragraphs) and a concluding paragraph. In this short guide, though, I want to describe the functions of each part. To me, this is more valuable. Concerning the content of our specific prompts, remember a few things. First, make sure to get the view of philosophers correct. Often, it helps to read certain sections a few times. Remember, creating caricatures of positions (e.g. simplistic versions that you might find online) not really engaging with them at all. Second, if and when you consider objections to specific positions, make sure they are relevant ones. In my slideshows, I try to mention all the key objections. Third, as noted above, make sure to cover all the components of the prompts. Doing this will often mean that you write much more than the minimum 1000 words. You might write 2000 words to answer the question. Remember, always ask yourself if you have really answered the question. Lastly, always stick to the point. Of course, it can be easy to get sidetracked (e.g. with a fun analogy) but remember to stay on point as much as is possible. Hopefully, if you keep these four points in mind, your essays will be clear and concise. Lastly, remember that you do not have to agree (or disagree) with Aristotle, Mill, or anyone. Often, it is better to agree with one aspect of a position and disagree with another, or agree or disagree only to a degree. Doing all this, after all, is carving your own unique take on positions. Peter Singer is perhaps famous for his position on animal rights. But actually, he is also famous for his positions on abortion, poverty, and civil disobedience. Just one reason for this is that he applies his version of utilitarianism without concern for how controversial it may be. Often, people say that they are sure he is incorrect, but just not sure why. Just as with every week, make sure to follow my directions for writing essays that I delineated in the beginning. So this week, answer one of the following questions: 1. What is ‘speciesism,’ exactly? Peter Singer is famous for arguing that we are guilty of this. Are we really guilty of speciesism? Is it that bad? To answer this, make sure to cover his arguments for it, and the objections he cites. In the supplementary reading, Bonnie Steinbock, in her "Speciesism and the Idea of Equality" criticizes Singer. Similarly, Carl Cohen, in "Do Animals Have Rights," denies that they have rights. So make sure to consider Steinbock and Cohen. Who is right? Why? Lastly, if Singer is right that we are speciesists, what can we do about it? 2. Singer objects to typical pro-choice arguments for abortion, yet offers his own. What are his criticisms of the usual arguments, exactly? Actually, from the supplementary reading, Mary Anne Warren argues for the same, in her "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Given this, make sure to consider her article. Generally, Singer and Warren argue that embryos (or fetuses) are not yet persons. Do you think that this fact is a sufficient defense of abortion rights? Why or why not? 3. In his "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer relies on the idea of comparable moral significance. What is this principle, exactly? What do you think of this idea? Evaluate the principle. Given this principle, Singer says, we are obligated to help the poor. Moreover, pursuing luxuries (e.g. buying a Lamborghini) is immoral. Singer even argues that not helping the poor. is murder. John Arthur, in his "Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code" criticizes this view. Make sure to consider his view. Who is right, and why? What do you think?
READ MORE >>
