Presenting and Evaluating Philosophical Theories Final Paper Guidelines Assignment Description: The purpose of this assignment is to allow you to demonstrate the skills that you have been Developing throughout the semester in presenting and evaluating philosophical arguments/theories. This final paper will be an expository presentation and evaluation of one argument/theory from any of the readings we have done this semester.

Your paper should focus on 1) briefly introducing the topic and your thesis in the introduction, 2) reconstructing and presenting an argument or theory from a selected primary text, and 3) evaluating the argument/theory (i.e., take issue with, or defend, some aspect of the argument/theory). There is no one way to evaluate an argument/interpretation, but there are some common components of “good” evaluations: (1) the evaluation is not based on a misunderstanding of the original argument (and should explain, or at least hint at, why the original argument has some degree of plausibility); (2) the evaluation makes assumptions that the original author would (or consistently could) accept; (3) the evaluation discusses compelling reasons why the original argument is problematic or successful; (4) the evaluation considers possible responses to the objections or defenses it has raised (and replies to these possible responses) The papers will be submitted as an electronic copy (to the Blackboard site) and all papers are subject to plagiarism checks through www.turnitin.com Assignment Requirements: – Your paper should be roughly 1500 words. – Your paper should be double-spaced, with 1” margins, and should be composed in a “standard” font (e.g., Times New Roman, Garamond, etc.) size 12. – The papers are to be submitted as an electronic copy to the Blackboard site (all papers are subject to plagiarism checks through www.turnitin.com) – The electronic copy is due on Monday Dec 10 th by 3:30p (the end of our final exam time slot) Additional Guidelines: – You must have a thesis and argue for it. The thesis you will end up defending should be made clear early in the paper (i.e., in the introductory paragraph). “I will discuss X’s paper” or “I will discuss whether or not X’s position is too demanding” is not a thesis statement. “I will defend X’s claim/argument for Y,” or “I will argue that the X’s objection to Y fails” is a thesis statement. – Before you argue for your thesis, you will have to carefully explain the relevant background. – Arguing for your thesis requires giving premises that together support your thesis, and giving reasons for the truth of the premises. You will have to use your own judgment in determining which of your premises require more support or motivation than others. – You must consider at least one response/objection to your argument and reply to it. Note: an objection to your argument need not purport to show that your thesis is false; it need only purport to show that the argument you give for your thesis is problematic: it has a false or implausible premise, a fallacious step in reasoning, etc.. – In your reply, be careful not to just repeat your argument for your thesis. Address the objection itself; make clear why, initial appearances to the contrary, the objection is 1mistaken, confused, turns on a misunderstanding of the original argument, or can be avoided by an appropriate or reasonable qualification or amendment in your argument. – Last but not least, keep in mind that a large part of the evaluation depends on the clarity of your writing. Because philosophical ideas are inherently abstract and at least somewhat vague, the most essential virtue of good philosophical writing is clarity, at several different levels: – Clarity of large-scale organization or structure: It should be clear to the reader what position or thesis you are defending, and how all the paragraphs hang together and contribute to your overall goal. Transitions in the dialectical structure of the paper (e.g., from presenting someone’s argument to criticizing it, to considering an objection to your criticism, to responding to it) should be obvious. – Clarity of paragraph structure: Each paragraph should be centered around one main theme or point. It should be clear what the main point of each paragraph is, and how its sentences contribute to that paragraph’s main point. – Clarity of sentence structure: Make sure your sentences are grammatical, that your use of punctuation is apt, clear use of subjects, verbs, predicates, etc.. – Clarity with respect to choice of words and phrases: Write so as not to be misunderstood. Avoid words and phrases that are vague, ambiguous, don’t make sense, or say something other than what you are trying to say. Make sure to clearly define any technical philosophical vocabulary to the reader (don’t assume your reader knows the philosophical background, or what the technical terms mean). Think carefully about what you are trying to say and how best to express it as you write. – The best way to avoid a lot of these problems in clarity is to make sure you give yourself time to edit your work. It also might help to read your draft out loud; that might help you catch mistakes and awkward phrases that you might otherwise miss. – Limit the number of direct quotes you use from the text (do not use any extended quotes) – If you choose to defend rather than criticize a particular argument, you must be sure that you do not merely restate the same reasons that the author of the original argument relies upon. – Supporting an argument involves coming up with reasons, additional to those discussed by the author, that justify the premises and/or the support they provide for the conclusion. – You should imagine that you are writing for a generally educated audience that has no particular background in philosophy. That is, don’t rely heavily on technical jargon to make your point. Using examples to explain difficult and complex concepts can be extremely helpful!! – Your goal is have a clear and focused discussion, and to this end the use of simple, everyday language is well suited. Write like you speak (omitting, of course, vulgarities and slang). – Be charitable to the original author! Give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Ask yourself, “Why would a (sufficiently) intelligent person think this?” – This paper is an argumentative essay; the overall goal of the paper is to present a clear and concise discussion of the material and then to demonstrate to your audience (through argument) that your thesis is correct. – One way to start thinking about possible criticisms to an argument is to consider the following questions (though evaluations need not be limited to these questions): Is the argument valid/strong? Are the premises true? Do you agree with the conclusion? If so, why? If not, why not? 2You will be evaluated on the basis of: 1. Your explanation of the relevant background – i.e., the main theory, problem, or argument that that you are writing on, and the secondary literature you are responding to. (Accuracy, Completeness, Clarity) 2. Clarity of your thesis, and the cogency of your argument for your thesis. 3. Your consideration of (at least one) objection, and your response to it. 4. The general clarity of the paper structure and writing. 5. Originality. Additional Resources: You can find additional resources under the Resources tab on the Blackboard page (e.g., Resources – Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper; Resources – Writing Philosophy Papers; Resources – notes on writing and writing mistakes) The Writing Center!! https://earth.callutheran.edu/writing_center/index.php **If you utilize the services of the Writing Center or the Philosophy D.A. (e.g., discuss your paper, have them read through a draft of your paper, etc.) and get an official stamp or signature certifying that you did so you will receive 2% extra credit on the paper. 3Feel free to use the following to outline the structure and arguments for your paper: My thesis is: Summary of primary text argument/theory: The main premises of my argument for my thesis are: The central response/objection to my argument that I will consider is: This response/objection attacks which part, or step in reasoning, in my argument? My reply to the objection is: 4Philosophy Paper Rubric Organization (approximately 15%) Clarity of the various parts of the paper Exemplary -The paper has a very effective introduction, with a clear thesis and indication of the plan of the paper to follow. -The paper is organized into clear and logically appropriate sections and subsections. -There are clear and appropriate transitions within and between sections. -The paper is easy to follow and written in a clear and professional style. Good -The paper’s introduction is effective, with a thesis and plan of the paper to follow, but either not clearly or with the inclusion of irrelevant material. -The paper is organized into clear and logically appropriate sections and subsections, though that organization is not perfectly clear. -A few transitions between and within sections are either missing or not all perfectly clear. -The paper is fairly easy to follow, and generally is written in a clear and professional style. Competent -The paper’s introduction includes a thesis, but either omits other necessary elements or includes excessive amounts of irrelevant material. -The paper has identifiable sections and subsections, but not arranged in a clear and logical way. -There are noticeably many missing, unclear, or inappropriate transitions. -The writing style and tone negatively affects the intelligibility of the paper. Below Average/Inadequate -The paper either has no introduction, or it has no thesis or other necessary elements, or it is very unclear or includes excessive amounts of irrelevant material. -The paper’s sections and subsections are difficult to identify, and are not arranged in a logical way. -Transitions are either largely ignored or are detrimental to making the paper’s organization clear. -The writing style seriously compromises the intelligibility of the essay. 5Exposition (approximately 35%) Explanation of views and arguments of others Exemplary -All views discussed are presented accurately and clearly. -Every argument discussed in the paper is clearly stated, with a clear logical structure, and with an appropriate level of detail. -Supporting arguments are stated where necessary. -The views and arguments presented are relevant to the paper’s overall thesis. Good -There are isolated errors in the accuracy and clarity of the views discussed. -Some arguments discussed are somewhat unclear or incompletely stated. -More exposition of relevant supporting arguments is necessary. -Nearly all views and arguments discussed are relevant to the overall thesis. Competent -There are noticeable and significant errors in the accuracy and clarity of the views discussed, with a negative effect on other elements of the paper. -Many of the arguments discussed are unclear or incompletely stated. -Exposition of relevant supporting arguments is largely ignored. -Many arguments discussed in the paper are irrelevant to the overall thesis. Below Average/Inadequate -The views discussed are barely intelligible. -The arguments discussed are very unclear, largely incomplete, or barely intelligible. -Relevant supporting arguments are ignored. -The arguments discussed are irrelevant to the overall thesis. 6Evaluation (approximately 40%) Presentation of the author’s argument(s), criticism of views and arguments of others, and consideration of possible objections to the author’s arguments & criticisms Exemplary -The author’s own arguments are clearly stated, with a clear logical structure and with an appropriate level of detail. -Supporting arguments are given where necessary -Each reason for believing the thesis is made clear, the premises clearly support the thesis, and the author is aware of exactly the kind of support they provide. -Relevant objections are considered where appropriate. -The author’s views and arguments are relevant to the paper’s overall thesis. -The author’s own criticism(s) are clearly stated, with a clear logical structure and with an appropriate level of detail. -Relevant objections to the author’s criticism are considered where appropriate. -The author’s criticism(s) are relevant to the paper’s overall thesis. Good -The author’s own arguments are clear, but could be put more clearly and/or with a greater level of detail. -More supporting arguments are needed, or they require more detail. -The premises are all clear, although each may not be presented in a single statement, the premises support the thesis, and the author is aware of the general kind of support they provide. -Objections are either not considered in enough detail, or the paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections. -Nearly everything discussed is relevant to the overall thesis. -Some of the author’s criticism(s) are somewhat unclear or incompletely stated. -Relevant objections are either not considered in enough detail, or the paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections. -Nearly everything related to the author’s criticism(s) is relevant to the paper’s overall thesis. Competent -The author’s arguments are not stated clearly and/or with the appropriate level of detail. -Supporting arguments are barely considered where necessary. -The premises must be reconstructed from the text of the paper, the premises somewhat support the thesis, but it is not clear the author is aware of the kind of support they provide. -Objections are either not considered in detail, or the paper ignored stronger, more obvious objections. -Some of the author’s views and arguments given are irrelevant to the overall thesis. -The author’s criticism(s) are not stated clearly and/or with the appropriate level of detail. -Relevant objections are either not considered in detail, or the paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections. -Some of the author’s criticism(s) are irrelevant to the paper’s overall thesis. Below Average/Inadequate -The author’s arguments are very unclear or barely intelligible. -Supporting arguments are not provided where necessary. -There are no premises—the paper merely restates the thesis. -Relevant objections are not considered at all, or they receive very little attention. -The author’s arguments are irrelevant to the overall thesis. -The author’s criticism(s) are barely intelligible or hardly stated at all. -Relevant objections are not considered, or they receive very little attention. -The paper either fails to criticize the views and arguments of others as required, or the author’s criticisms are irrelevant to the paper’s overall thesis. 7Basic Writing (approximately 10%) Grammar, mechanics, basic usage, usage of terminology, and style Exemplary -There are very few (if any) errors with respect to grammar, mechanics, word choice, spelling, etc. -There are few (if any) awkward word choices, phrasing choices, or sentences. -The paper demonstrates a clear command of proper modes of expression for basic vocabulary. -Individual paragraphs are structured properly around a single task or point for each. -The paper demonstrates a clear command of the proper use of technical terminology relevant to the subject matter of the paper. -The paper demonstrates a clear command of the proper use of basic, non-technical terminology relevant to philosophy and argumentation. -Properly-formatted in-text citations are provided where appropriate, with a properly-formatted list of references at the end. Good -There are occasional minor errors of grammar, mechanics, and usage in the paper, or perhaps a singular instance of a more substantial one. Such minor errors have very little effect on the overall clarity and coherence of the paper. -There may be an occasional awkward sentence or phrase, but with little effect on the coherence of the point being made or on the paper overall. -There are isolated errors concerning proper modes of expression for basic vocabulary. -Nearly all paragraphs are structured properly around a single task or point. -There are isolated errors concerning the use of technical terminology. -There are isolated errors concerning the use of basic terminology of philosophy and argumentation. -Some in-text citations and/or entries in the references list are missing or improperly formatted. Competent -There are noticeably many errors of grammar, mechanics, and usage, or a moderate number of more substantial errors. The errors have a detrimental effect on the clarity and coherence of the paper. -There are a number of awkward sentences and/or phrases that negatively affect the paper’s coherence. -There are significant errors with respect to proper modes of expression for basic vocabulary. -A significant number of paragraphs are not clearly structured around a single task or point. -There are significant errors in the use of technical terminology. -There are significant errors in the use of the basic terminology of philosophy and argumentation. -There are significantly many errors with respect to the paper’s in-text citations and/or the list of references. Below Average/Inadequate -There are numerous errors, or there are several types of errors that occur repeatedly. The errors seriously compromise the coherence of the paper. -There are errors resulting in terribly awkward sentences and phrasing. -The paper demonstrates little understanding of the proper modes of expression for basic vocabulary. -Most or all paragraphs are poorly structured, with few of them having any clear point. -The paper demonstrates little or no understanding of the proper use of technical terminology. -The paper demonstrates little or no understanding of the proper use of the basic terminology of philosophy and argumentation. -The paper shows little or no understanding of the proper use of in-text citations. A list of references may be missing.