The document provides instructions for writing an 8-10 page paper for a PHIL 1500 course. It specifies that the topic can be on any text from the assigned anthology that was not covered in class. It provides several suggested topics and articles to write about in different areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, metaphysics, moral philosophy, and philosophy of religion. It also gives guidance on structuring the paper, including engaging with the text, using citations, and demonstrating that the student has read and understood the selected reading.
Paper for PHIL 1500A paper of roughly eight pages (word-process.docx
1. Paper for PHIL 1500
A paper of roughly eight pages (word-processed, double-spaced)
will be adequate, but anything up to ten pages is fine. The
choice of philosophical topic is yours. However, you are
required to write on some text within the
Rosen/Byrne/Cohen/Harman/
Shriffrin anthology (henceforth RBCHS) that we did not read as
a class (which means that there is much to choose from). You
might choose to compare the discussion in the work that you
choose with a similar discussion in some text that was read by
the class over the course of the semester.
Suggested articles that you might respond to in your paper
1. Epistemology
a. George Bishop Berkeley (pronounced BARK-lee) (1685–
1753) is associated with so-called Berkeleyan idealism, the
perhaps surprising doctrine according to which ideas in the
mind (appearances or sensations) exhaust existence—that is,
nothing but these ideas exist, in particular, physical objects do
not. See selections from his Dialogues between Hylas and
Phylonous in Rosen et al. 417–428.
b. A view perhaps similar to that of Berkeley is presented by
Buddhist monk Vasubandhu (c. 450 C.E.). See Rosen et al.
430–439, where claims, grounds, and argument are marshalled
somewhat in the manner of Toulmin.
c. Nick Bostrom, “Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?”,
Rosen et al. 443–451. This celebrated Swedish philosopher
argues for a disjunctive claim: briefly, either (1) the vast
majority of advanced human-like civilizations never become all
that advanced, either technologically or inquisitively, or (2) it is
all but certain that you are presently “living” in a computer
simulation (a virtual reality) designed by some AI team
belonging to such a civilization. (If (2) holds, then you are not
2. in fact living, it seems.)
2. Metaphysics
a. Susan Wolf, “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”,
RBCHS 445–656
b. Nomy Arpaly, “Why Moral Ignorance Is No Excuse”, RBCHS
658–653
3. Moral Philosophy
a. Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, RBCHS
678–684
b. Onora O’Neill, “The Moral Perplexities of Famine and World
Hunger”, RBCHS 685–695
c. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper “A Defense of Abortion”,
RBCHS 696–704
d. Elizabeth Harman, “The Moral Significance of Animal Pain
and Animal Death,” RBCHS 714–721
e. Cora Diamond, “Eating Meat and Eating People”, RBCHS
723–729
4. Philosophy of Religion
a. Robert White, “The Argument from Cosmological Fine-
Tuning”, RBCHS 29–35
b. Alvin Plantinga, “When Is Faith Rational?”, RBCHS 107–117
5. Political Philosophy
a. Harry Frankfurt, “Equality As a Moral Ideal”, RBCHS 1136–
1143
b. Martha Nussbaum, “Political Equality”, RBCHS 1146–1154
6. Any of the articles in the section entitled “What Is the
Meaning of Life”, RBCHS 973–1020
7. The articles listed on page xix in Rosen et al. were written
specially for this anthology and are hence likely to be most
understandable. We read that of Hursthouse, which is hence not
permissible as the topic of the paper. However, this leaves
many others.
8. Students wishing to write on non-Western philosophy may
write on any one of the papers of Baruch’s Professor H.
Sarkissian, whose specialty is philosophy in the Buddhist and
Confucian traditions. The instructor’s especially recommends
3. his “Minor Tweaks, Major Payoffs: The Problems and Promise
of Situationism in Moral Philosophy,” Philosopher’s Imprint
10(9) 1–15 (available on-line), which concerns Confucian
ethics.
Suggestions for writing a good paper
1. You should not include any biographical information
concerning the author(s) of the reading(s) that you choose to
write about unless this is of intrinsic philosophical interest.
Submissions whose first pages comprise such information will
be graded accordingly.
2. There must be ample evidence that you yourself have read the
reading(s) you have chosen. If your paper consists of little
more than biographical information and general philosophical
remarks, from Internet sources, that are not keyed to passages
within the chosen readings, then your grade for the paper will
suffer.
3. On your first read-through of the selection you have chosen,
you might have in mind the following questions:
(a) At whom is the author’s article directed? Whose is the
author’s intended audience? Typically, that audience will turn
out to be other philosophers or students of philosophers? Does
the author seem to have in mind philosophers inclined to a
certain philosophical doctrine? Or are the author’s words
merely directed at those who have asked themselves certain
philosophical questions without having arrived at any particular
conclusions? (Write up answers to these questions; they might
serve as the basis for a first draft.)
(b) What is the author’s topic? To what area of philosophy does
that topic belong?
(c) What is the author’s claim with respect to his chosen topic?
Does the author present an argument for his claim? What are
the grounds for the claim? Is the author’s argument
convincing? If not, can you see a way to improve the author’s
argument so as to make it more convincing? In general, you
4. might try to apply Toulmin’s Six-Point Method of Argument
Analysis here, identifying in writing how each of Toulmin’s six
points is applicable. For example, are there philosophical
objections that the author is recognizing in advance and
attempting to rebut?
(d) Does your author’s introduce technical terms? If so, give
some example of such terms and of how the author uses them.
(e) Does your author rest his case on certain distinctions? If so,
can you make sense of those distinctions? This is especially
important in the case of ancient writers, who frequently make
distinctions that may make little sense on the face of it. Can
you provide a sympathetic interpretation that enables you to
make sense of these distinctions?
4. You may also find the “Notes and Questions” at the end of
each selection helpful. Indeed, one or two of the questions
raised there may provide the germ of your paper.
5. There should be a bibliography, which might include just our
course anthology. Citations should be minimal. If all your
citations are to our course anthology, those after the first one
should be abbreviated—just a page number should suffice.
6. Lastly, the most important determiner of your grade will be
the instructor’s sense of the extent to which you yourself
became engaged with the reading(s) you chose. In the past, a
few students have chosen to write in the first person, perhaps on
the model of a journal entry. This is nonstandard for
philosophy papers, where one tends to avoid the pronouns “I”
and “me”. However, the most important criterion for the
instructor will be engagement. If structuring your paper as a
sort of journal entry helps you to achieve such engagement, then
feel free to do so.
7. Evidence of engagement takes many forms. Failing to proof-
read your paper and/or ignoring your spelling checker are not
ways to convince the instructor that this project was
meaningful to you. You might find the introductory entries “A
Brief Guide to Logic and Argumentation” and “Some Guidelines
for Writing Philosophy Papers” in RBCHS to be helpful