Writing the Term Paper PHIL1120 Environmental Ethics Instructor Bearden Fall 2011 Contents: 1. How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper? (1) 2. What is a thesis statement? (2) 3. Using outside sources (4) 4. Possible paper topics (6) How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper? All students are expected to write one term paper on a relevant topic in the course that considers a philosophical position or contemporary environmental issue in detail. Papers should be 5-6 pages in length, double-spaced, in font size 12 and free from grammatical and other errors. Papers should show creativity and imagination but should also be written with clarity and precision. Students will first submit a thesis statement indicating their topic, proposed argument, and support from philosophical sources. The thesis is worth 5% of the final grade and is graded on a pass/fail basis. Students will receive comments and guidance from the instructor regarding their thesis before the paper’s due date. Consult the Course Schedule for all due dates. Students are warmly encouraged to discuss the paper topic with the instructor. Please see the instructor if you have further questions or need help during any phase of the writing process. The first step in the writing process is picking a topic that interests you. What issues were you hoping to tackle in this course? What ideas have most impacted the way you think? What would you like to know more about? Narrowing the field to a few topics is a good start. From there, consider what readings our book offers on the subject. You are free to write about any environmental issue, as long as it is considered from a moral point of view. That said, you might also look into public policy, environmental science, economics or any other related field. Following your interest is one way to encourage creativity in your papers. Starting with a question regarding your topic is a good second step. What would you like to investigate about a particular topic? Consider the scope of your paper and whether or not there will be conclusive and clear evidence for you to research. Solid papers will argue for a clear point and will incorporate relevant evidence when applicable. As you settle on your topic, consider what premises you will need to consider in order to reach a conclusion on your topic. Think of these premises as the primary support for what your paper aims to prove. These three premises should help frame your paper, setting the scope of your investigation. Next, consider how each of these premises logically fit together to help you address your topic of choice. Try to make these premises fit as precisely as possible. The more you are able to simplify these premises into a logical argument, the more precise your paper will be. Obviously, you’ll return to these as you pursue this topic through research. But you are now on your way to formulating a thesis. For a more detailed discussion of the thesi.

1. Writing the Term Paper
PHIL1120 Environmental Ethics
Instructor Bearden
Fall 2011
Contents:
1. How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper? (1)
2. What is a thesis statement? (2)
3. Using outside sources (4)
4. Possible paper topics (6)
How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper?
All students are expected to write one term paper on a relevant
topic in the course that
considers a philosophical position or contemporary
environmental issue in detail. Papers
should be 5-6 pages in length, double-spaced, in font size 12
and free from grammatical and
other errors. Papers should show creativity and imagination but
should also be written with
clarity and precision. Students will first submit a thesis
statement indicating their topic,
proposed argument, and support from philosophical sources.
The thesis is worth 5% of the
final grade and is graded on a pass/fail basis. Students will
receive comments and guidance
from the instructor regarding their thesis before the paper’s due
date. Consult the Course
Schedule for all due dates. Students are warmly encouraged to
discuss the paper topic with

2. the instructor. Please see the instructor if you have further
questions or need help during any
phase of the writing process.
The first step in the writing process is picking a topic that
interests you. What issues
were you hoping to tackle in this course? What ideas have most
impacted the way you think?
What would you like to know more about? Narrowing the field
to a few topics is a good start.
From there, consider what readings our book offers on the
subject. You are free to write about
any environmental issue, as long as it is considered from a
moral point of view. That said,
you might also look into public policy, environmental science,
economics or any other
related field. Following your interest is one way to encourage
creativity in your papers.
Starting with a question regarding your topic is a good second
step. What would you
like to investigate about a particular topic? Consider the scope
of your paper and whether or
not there will be conclusive and clear evidence for you to
research. Solid papers will argue
for a clear point and will incorporate relevant evidence when
applicable. As you settle on
your topic, consider what premises you will need to consider in
order to reach a conclusion
on your topic. Think of these premises as the primary support
for what your paper aims to
prove. These three premises should help frame your paper,
setting the scope of your
investigation. Next, consider how each of these premises
logically fit together to help you
address your topic of choice. Try to make these premises fit as
precisely as possible. The
more you are able to simplify these premises into a logical

3. argument, the more precise your
paper will be. Obviously, you’ll return to these as you pursue
this topic through research. But
you are now on your way to formulating a thesis. For a more
detailed discussion of the thesis
statement, keep reading…
Bearden 1
What is a thesis statement?
In the assigned term papers you are free to present arguments
for your views, but you
may also consider offering arguments for positions you
personally do not agree with. Part of
philosophizing is learning how to present and analyze
arguments effectively; separating
yourself from the argument is often a good method of learning
how to philosophize. (For
instance, maybe you think the strong animal rights position is
too strong, but you could try to
argue in its favor.) In this sense, argument means: “to offer a
set of reasons or evidence in
support of a conclusion,” (Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for
Arguments, xi). This is how
argumentation differs from opinion. Opinions often lack a ready
set of reasons or evidence
that can be offered in support. The conclusion is carefully
reached, whereas an opinion is
merely asserted without supporting reasons or evidence.
Since you are writing an argumentative paper, the thesis is the
most important aspect
of a paper. Please note again that a thesis statement (rough
draft) is due before the paper due
date. During the writing process, the thesis should be the first

4. and last thing you write. First,
decide what you will argue based on the reading and research
you have done. Then after you
have written the body of the paper using that research, return to
the thesis. Check to make
sure that what you have actually written about is what you say
you are writing about in your
thesis. In other words, your thesis should be a summary of
everything you have written. If
you wrote about something or failed to write about something
that your first drafted thesis
includes, you should revise the thesis accordingly. Likewise, if
you planned to discuss a
point, but omit it from the final draft, revise your thesis.
Restating your thesis (using new
phrasing) also will provide the conclusion to your paper.
Another way to think about a thesis statement is to consider
what question you are
asking in your paper. Your thesis statement can include a
question or questions, but a
question alone (even a set of questions) is not sufficient enough
for a thesis. Questions can be
provocative and interesting, but they lack substance. Questions
alone do not help the reader
determine how you will answer the question(s). Thus a proper
thesis should be your answer
to that question. What are you trying to prove or establish
through argument based on an
initial question? The more precise your initial question means
you will be able to provide a
more detailed and precise thesis. Consider a full answer to your
question might consist in
three or four sentences, rather than one sentence alone.
When I read your papers, I should know exactly what the paper
is going to be about.
Though it may take away the surprise, a well crafted

5. philosophical essay gives away the
central argument and conclusion right up front. Every main idea
or argument contained in the
paper should be mentioned and given a brief introduction in the
thesis statement. The thesis
is a short version of your argument. See the example below:
Example of a Strong Thesis:
Anthropocentrism is the view that only human animals have
moral value. However,
recent moral philosophers have attacked the underlying
assumption that animals are
always inferior to humans. The utilitarian philosopher Peter
Singer claims that
because the ability to feel pain and pleasure is morally relevant,
we should extend
moral consideration to nonhuman animals who share this
capacity. Human activities
Bearden 2
such as consumption of animal meat and other products,
scientific testing, and
hunting or trapping inflict pain on animals and hence, Singer
claims these practices
are morally wrong and ought to be abandoned. I will agree with
Singer that pain is
morally relevant, however, it does not always follow that not
killing an animal
produces the least amount of pain. Also, if animal agriculture
and scientific testing
could undergo reforms to reduce inflicted suffering, it might be
justified to continue
using animals in this way. Killing or using an animal does not

6. automatically imply
that the animal is inferior, and though while anthropocentrism
may be morally
groundless, Singer offers no compelling reason to fully abolish
using animals to
human ends, even where there is a conflict of equal
consideration of interests.
Following this thesis statement the body of the paper will
progress as follows.
1. Develop Singer’s critique of anthropocentrism.
2. Explain how the utilitarian theory helps provide the basis of
moral consideration
(considering who/what feels pain and pleasure; the right actions
tend to maximizes
pleasure or happiness, and wrong actions do the reverse,
considering everyone).
3. Develop Singer’s case for the Strong Animal Rights position.
4. Your position: offer a critique of the strong animal rights
position (preferably
appealing to some relevant research that can strengthen your
case). Make sure you
reach a judgment. You might decide to argue in favor of
Singer’s position, but it’s a
good idea to consider at least one other perspective or one
serious objection to the
view. This makes your conclusion stronger!
Example of a Weak Thesis:
In the history of philosophy, one thing that is determined is that
philosophers always
disagree and contradict each other. Is global warming real? Why
does this even

7. matter? Isn’t it obvious that people matter more than animals or
natural objects? I feel
that there is nothing wrong with the environment, it’s all made
up by Hollywood and
the media.
This thesis is weak because:
1. It broadly considers the disagreements among unnamed
philosophers with no
central relevance to any paper topic. Watch out for hasty
generalizations that don’t
offer support of your argument directly. Also be careful not to
use sweeping
historical generalizations either.
2. It raises questions that it fails to answer. Remember that
statement form is the
proper format for a strong thesis, not questions. If you raise
questions, then
consider how your paper will answer them definitively. If you
are unable to address
the questions (because they are too broad or rhetorical) then
consider other
questions.
3. It doesn’t address a clear and relevant topic. It’s unclear if
the paper will address
global warming or animal rights, the human caused
environmental crisis, the
difference between what is factual and what is perception, or all
of the above.
Bearden 3

8. 4. Lastly, while it does almost take a position (generally
something to aim for), it is
not supported as a reasonable conclusion from the thesis. In fact
it’s not clear what
the central position is, so it’s unclear how this position will be
reached with a well-
researched argument. Consider that this position also radically
differs from the
view contemporary science favors (that some human actions are
majorly
destructive to the environment--can recent catastrophes such as
the Gulf oil spill or
nuclear power plant meltdowns be totally ignored?). Consider
reasons relevant
from the assigned reading and further research. You are
encouraged to form your
own views and articulate your opinion, just make sure that you
find support for it.
Once you offer support of your position, it ceases to be mere
opinion only.
Using Outside Sources:
This term paper requires consulting and incorporating
scholarly sources, both primary
and secondary. A primary source is a text from the philosopher
you are writing about in their
own words (our text is a primary source reader, so any of the
articles count as primary
sources). A secondary source is someone else writing about the
ideas/concepts of your
philosopher (the editorial introductions by Pojman are
secondary sources). If you have any
question about acceptable sources, please see the instructor. The
syllabus mentions a few
helpful internet resources as well that might provide a good

9. starting point, including a link to
finding philosophy materials through the library. The library
offers helpful research searches
by field, this is called the RSQ (here is the link:
http://research.anokaramsey.edu/). Please
note that your sources should be scholarly (sorry Wikipedia
fans, but it’s not scholarly). In
other words, they are written by professionals working in the
field. Exceptional essays will
include a minimum of three scholarly sources and will probably
attempt to read at least one
philosophical primary source. Mediocre essays will use limited
research.
Citing sources is an important aspect of writing a paper. The
general rule is to cite
every idea or thought that is not your own. Sometimes you will
quote a source, other times
you will paraphrase or summarize a source, in all cases, cite a
source after you have finished
with the thought. I should be able to tell when, where, and how
you used sources from
references in the body of the paper and from your bibliography
page. If you fail to cite, you
have plagiarized!
Citing sources in the text:
author and page
number.
sure to
distinguish between them by including the title.
is cited, the

10. whole bibliographic information should be used.
publication along with
author and page number.
Bearden 4
to it!). I do not
require a specific citation manual style, so follow the style you
know best. But
be consistent, and include all relevant information.
Bibliography:
referenced at some
point in the paper.
r essay, make sure the
same source
appears on the bibliography.
-half
inch.
bibliographic
reference:
• author(s), listed by full name, last name first
• book, journal, or website title in italics or underlined

11. • article title (if there is one), usually in quotations
• edition or volume number (if applicable)
• editor or translator’s names (if applicable)
• publication city
• publisher
• publication year (or more precise date for internet sources)
• page numbers (if a source has multiple articles with multiple
authors,
e.g., citing an article from Pojman requires providing the
specific page
numbers of the article)
• website URL (if internet source)
• date you were on the website to obtain the source (only for
internet
sources)
Examples:
Brink, David. “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” in
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Published online October 9, 2007:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-
moral-political/. Accessed November 6, 2007.
Mill, John Stuart. “Nature” in Environmental Ethics: Readings
in Theory and Application.
Sixth Edition. Louis P. Pojman and Paul Pojman, editors.
Boston: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning, 2012. Pp. 122-129.

12. Bearden 5
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
Possible Paper Topics:
• Consider at least two arguments that address the topic of
anthropocentrism (Kant, Wilson,
Singer, Regan, Rolston, Naess, Devall and Sessions, Fox,
Taylor, Leopold, etc.). What are
the moral implications from anthropocentrism (what is implied
practically from its truth or
falsity)? On what grounds do such arguments appeal (to a
special capacity, unique to
humans, or to a commonality like the capacity for sentience,
etc.)? Which argument do you
find most compelling and why? What does this imply about
human actions?
• From an ethical perspective, is it possible to justify or defend
the inequality of humans and
non-human animals (i.e., speciesism)? Is species egalitarianism
the only way to promote
respect of the environment and non-human animals? Can we get
to species egalitarianism
only through utilitarian theories (consider at least two of the
philosophers: Singer, Regan
and Warren)?
• Respond to Dale Jamieson’s argument against Zoos. What
justifications for zoos does

13. Jamieson consider? What are his responses to those arguments?
Do his arguments have
broader implications, such as whether or not it is justifiable to
own pets? Are his arguments
convincing? What other philosophers help advance this
discussion (would Singer or Regan
support Jamieson’s conclusion, why or why not; can you find
any moral or other arguments
that present a compelling case for the preservation of zoos)?
• Consider the diverse deontological arguments on animal rights
(Kant, Wilson, and Regan).
How do each of their arguments work, and what conclusions do
they reach about animal
rights? Evaluate their arguments. Which is the most compelling
and why? Do you agree
with the strongest argument, why or why not (this recognizes
that the best argument may
not be the one that represents your own position)?
• Does Nature itself have value? What type of value does nature
have (instrumental,
aesthetic, intrinsic)? Consider at least two arguments that
address the value of nature (and
there is a long list: Rolston, Naess, Devall and Sessions, Fox,
Watson, Bookchin, Meadows,
Russow, Schweitzer, Taylor, Leopold, and Callicott). A great
approach for a paper like this
is to take two philosophers whose views differ (that itself is not
hard to accomplish), pit
them against one another, and argue for who you think provides
the most compelling
argument. Give reasons in support of your answer. Consider the
implications of such views
(if nature is intrinsically valuable, do we have to take a “hands-
off” approach?).

14. Considering the implications can provide a good way to analyze
whether the theories are
useful.
• Consider any of the following topics from a moral standpoint.
Use the readings in the text
to get you started, but your research may pull you in other
directions as well:
human impact on
the environment
Bearden 6
resources
and moral considerations of
diet
international
environmental convention)
evaluate alternate
energy solutions, from hybrid cars to solar panels and wind
farms)
environmentally
unfriendly?

15. The important point that makes such a topic morally relevant is
that you will make claims
about what we ought to do from a moral perspective. Given the
environmental problem,
how might we address it morally? Keep in mind that ethics
strives for ideals, so you may
argue for a high standard. For instance, even though not
everyone may become a
vegetarian, a strong argument for it will make even the self-
satisfied but reflective meat-
eater seriously consider their diet!
• Many of our articles are a brief section of a book by the
author. Consider writing a book
review of any of the authors included in our textbook who have
piqued your interest (e.g.,
Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, or Tom Regan’s The Case for
Animal Rights). You might
also consider a book review for authors who have been
mentioned in the online learning
(Rolston’s Genes Genesis and God, or de Waal’s Primates and
Philosophers). Students are
encouraged to run the book by the instructor first, in order to
determine the philosophical
relevancy. This topic does not necessarily excuse you from
outside research; many of the
prominent books have generated many other publications
(articles, reviews, books, etc.)
which may be relevant to a strong review essay.
Feel free to propose your own topic too!
• If you do propose your own topic, make sure that it is relevant
at some level to philosophy
or to environmental ethics.
• Avoid focusing on the bibliography of a philosopher. Though

16. many philosophers live/d
interesting lives, this assignment is NOT to profile the life of a
philosopher in a biography.
That said, the biography of the philosopher is probably not
relevant at any point in the
paper, even as an introduction to your paper or topic.
• You are also encouraged to consider a topic that is cross-
disciplinary, meaning it might
include scientific, public policy on a local or international
level, economics or other related
research. Just make sure that you don’t omit philosophical
consideration. See the instructor
with any questions.
Bearden 7
Order/Audience and Analysis Notes.docx
Audience and Analysis Notes
SKIP TO COURSE MENUSKIP TO TOP FRAME TABS
Content
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Page 2 of 7
Report and Proposal Notes:
The reading process is important to consider when writing a
report or proposal:
· People are constantly evaluating what you say. If your readers
feel that you have made too many questionable statements, they
will disregard your report. So, it is important for you to provide
reasons for your audience to believe you at every step. Provide

17. expert citations or rational reasons for why your readers should
come to the same conclusion you do.
· Don't overwhelm your reader. Your readers will do best with
small groups of information. Whenever possible, piece your
information into chunks of two to seven. Conversely, you
shouldn't present long lists of data or descriptions because your
readers will have trouble processing that information. You can
chunk information by organizing it in headings and
subheadings. You can also chunk information inside short lists
or tables.
Interpreting Analysis
In feasibility reports as well as proposals, readers are often
asking questions like:
· "What's in this report for me?"
· "Does this report move our organization toward its goals?
Does it move me toward my goals?"
· "Why should I believe you?"
· "Does this resonate with what I know about this problem?"
o Thus, at each statement, you run the risk of having your
reader disagree with you. If your reader disagrees enough, he or
she will likely dismiss your report or proposal. Therefore, you
need to do what you can to help your reader see why he or she
should agree with you.
Show vs. Tell
Show your reader why or how you came to the conclusions you
did, rather than tell your reader why or how you came to those
conclusions. This distinction is crucial.
o If you merely tell your reader that you determined that your
solution met the cost criterion, you haven't helped persuade
your reader. He/she could easily say, "I don't believe you," and
your report or proposal could then run the risk of being
ineffective. Rather, you should say, "I called five nationally
competitive vendors and received quotes on

18. Solution
X. The lowest price was $1,000.00. The highest was $1,150.00.
Therefore