General Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers Clarity and straightforwardness of thought and language are crucial: avoid

d flowery styles and long, superfluous introductions and conclusions. (No paper should ever start with a sentence like: !ince the dawn of ti"e, "ankind has pondered the #uestion of... $ %he &ulk of your paper should consist of philosophical e'position and analysis, in plain &ut precise language. (f you are writing an essay in response to an assigned essay topic, the "ost i"portant thing is si"ply to "ake sure you answer the #uestion that was asked, carefully and thoroughly. )void getting off on tangents that are not crucial to your topic, and avoid sweeping generali*ations you can+t support in the paper. (n addition to the #uality of e'position, one of the central things we look for in a philosophy paper is how well the thesis in #uestion is supported. ,ven if the reader thinks so"e of your clai"s are false, your paper can &e e'cellent if you do a solid -o& of defending your clai"s. (f you are asked to e'plain so"ething, do not "erely su""ari*e what an author or lecturer has said. ,'plain and illu"inate the relevant ideas or argu"ents in your own words, as if you were trying to help a fellow student gain a deeper understanding of the". )void e'cessive #uotation. !tringing together #uotes is not e'plaining a position or an argu"ent, and does not display your understanding of the "aterial. ,ven paraphrasing in your own words is not enough. )gain, e'planation involves clarifying the clai"s, &ringing out hidden assu"ptions &ehind argu"ents, noticing a"&iguities as they arise and nailing the" down, and so on. (n addition to careful e'planation of positions or argu"ents, so"e paper topics ask for critical evaluation of those positions and argu"ents. )n e'a"ple of critical evaluation of an argu"ent would &e "y lecture critici*ing %ho"son+s argu"ent for the conclusion that a&ortions wouldn+t violate a fetus+ right to life even if it were granted to have a full right to life. (( developed and used a distinction &etween positive and negative rights, and argued that the central parallel she appeals to in her argu"ent fails to go through, since it involves a conflation of positive and negative rights.$ !o"e paper topics ask you to do the sa"e sort of thing, and if you+re writing on such a topic, &e sure that this co"ponent of your paper is strong and well developed. Proofreading of papers is a necessity. !o is decent gra""ar: incoherent gra""ar "akes the effective co""unication of ideas i"possi&le. )s for which topic you choose: /ou should choose so"ething you+re "ost interested in and have the "ost to say a&out. 0eware of any topic that see"s too easy: (f it see"s si"ple11like so"ething you can dash off in a few paragraphs11then that+s a good sign that you+re not thinking deeply enough a&out it, and you should pro&a&ly write on another topic. !o choose your topic carefully. %his is i"portant: (f you use so"eone else+s words, you have to use #uotation "arks and cite the source in a footnote. (f you don+t, it+s plagiaris", which constitutes cheating and is a violation of the honor code. !ee note at top. !a"ple !hort Paper and Co""entary

2or (llustrative purposes only !a"ple ,ssay 3uestion: (s !ocrates+ position in the Crito, concerning the "oral authority of the state, consistent with his view that one should never do anything that is wrong4 (s it consistent with what he says, in the )pology, a&out what he would do if co""anded &y the state to cease practicing philosophy, or a&out what he did when co""anded &y the %hirty to capture 5eon of !ala"is for e'ecution4 ,'plain. (Note: page references are to a different edition than the one you have6 paragraphs should &e indented, &ut are not here due to li"itations of ht"l for"atting6 ( have not here included footnotes for the sa"e reason6 and your papers should &e dou&le1spaced, rather than single1spaced.$ !ocrates on the 7oral )uthority of the !tate (n the Crito, !ocrates "akes so"e surprisingly strong clai"s a&out the "oral authority of the state, which "ight even see" to &e inconsistent &oth with another funda"ental clai" he "akes in the Crito and with certain clai"s he "akes in the )pology. ( shall argue that although these clai"s see" to &e in so"e tension with each other, the crucial clai"s a&out the authority of the state in the Crito can plausi&ly &e interpreted in such a way as to re"ove any real inconsistency with the other clai"s. %he first, rather striking clai" a&out the "oral authority of the state occurs at 89& of the Crito. !ocrates argues that, &ecause of the state+s role as a provider of security, education, and various i"portant social institutions (such as "arriage$, the citi*ens of the state are its offspring and servants 6 and fro" this he concludes that citi*ens are su&ordinate to the state and its laws to such an e'tent that if a citi*en ever disagrees with the state+s laws or orders, he "ust either persuade it or o&ey its orders, even if the latter a"ounts to suffering death. %he i"plication for his own case is clear: !ocrates had tried to persuade the court of his innocence and of the in-ustice of his e'ecution (as detailed in the )pology$, &ut he had failed6 therefore, he argues, he "ust now o&ey the court and accept his death sentence11even though he still thinks that he is in the right on this "atter. %he second, closely related clai", co"es only a few paragraphs later, in 89e and 8:. !ocrates there argues that &y virtue of re"aining in the state, a citi*en enters into an i"plied contract with it to o&ey its co""ands. 7ore precisely, the clai" is again that a citi*en who has a disagree"ent with the state "ust either persuade it that it is wrong, or else o&ey it. (n the voice of the personified laws: either persuade us or do what we say (8:a$. %he i"plication, again, is that if one fails to persuade the state to change its "ind, for whatever reason, then one "ust o&ey its orders. ) citi*en has no "oral right to continue to resist the state, even if he is convinced that he is in the right and the state is in the wrong. Now as "entioned a&ove, these clai"s see" directly opposed to certain other clai"s !ocrates "akes. 7ost i"portantly, earlier in the Crito itself, !ocrates had stressed that one "ust never do wrong (;<&$. (ndeed, this serves as the driving principle &ehind the

rest of his argu"ent in the Crito. 0ut is this really consistent with "aintaining that one "ust always o&ey the state, if one fails to persuade it that so"ething it orders is wrong4 %he o&vious o&-ection is that the state "ight well order one to do so"ething wrong11e.g. &ecause one of its laws is an un-ust one, as =i" Crow laws were. (n that case, !ocrates+ clai" that one should never do anything wrong would entail refusing to do what the state orders11even if one is unsuccessful in persuading the state that it is wrong. %hus, !ocrates+ clai" that one should never do wrong see"s inconsistent with his clai" that one "ust always o&ey the final orders of the state. !econdly, it "ight &e o&-ected that !ocrates+ view of the "oral authority of the state is inconsistent &oth with what he did when ordered &y the %hirty to capture 5eon of !ala"is for e'ecution, and with what he says he+d do if ordered &y the state to cease practicing philosophy (&oth fro" the )pology$. When the %hirty ordered hi" to capture 5eon, he refused, on the grounds that this would have &een wrong (un-ust and i"pious$. ()pology, >:c1d$ %his see"s to &e a recognition that one is "orally o&ligated or at least per"itted to diso&ey the state when what it co""ands is wrong11even if one fails to persuade it of its wrongness. )nd si"ilarly, !ocrates "akes clear that he would diso&ey the state and continue philosophi*ing if it were to order hi" to stop11again, on the grounds that it would &e wrong for hi" to stop philosophi*ing (recall that he saw philosophy as his life+s "ission, given hi" &y the god$. ()pology, :<c1d$ )gain, this see"s to contradict what he says in the Crito a&out the supre"e "oral authority of the state and its laws and orders. ( &elieve, however, that it is possi&le to read the crucial passages a&out the authority of the state in the Crito in such a way as to render the" consistent with !ocrates+ e'hortation never to do wrong, and with his re"arks a&out diso&edience in the )pology. %o see this, it is necessary to distinguish first of all &etween two issues: (a$ what the law "ight re#uire you to do, and (&$ what the law "ight re#uire you to endure. With this distinction in "ind, consider the following possi&le interpretations of !ocrates+ clai" a&out the "oral authority of the state in the Crito: (i$ Citi*ens "ust o&ey any law or order of the state, whatever it asks the" to do or to endure6 (ii$ Citi*ens "ust endure whatever any law or order of the state says they "ust11including the law that verdicts arrived at through proper procedures shall &e carried out11&ut citi*ens need not and "orally should not do what is prescri&ed &y an un-ust law. Now which of these positions is it "ost plausi&le to attri&ute to !ocrates in the Crito4 %here are passages that "ight see" to suggest i (e.g. 89e, 8:a$, &ut again, the o&vious pro&le" is that it see"s inconsistent with his funda"ental principle that one should never do wrong (;<a$11at least on the assu"ption, which !ocrates clearly accepts in the )pology, that the state is not infalli&le as regards -udg"ents of right and wrong. %hus, a "ore charita&le reading would interpret the passages a&out the "oral authority of the state as referring i"plicitly to cases where the state does not re#uire one to do anything un-ust, &ut "erely to endure so"ething (or perhaps to do so"ething that is not itself

un-ust, such as rendering so"e political service$. (f the passages are read in this way, we can interpret !ocrates+ clai" as ii a&ove. When he says that one "ust o&ey the state+s final laws and orders, what he "eans is that one "ust do anything it tells one to do within the &ounds of -ustice, and that one "ust endure anything it tells one to endure. %hus, !ocrates was not o&ligated to capture 5eon of !ala"is, and would not &e o&ligated to cease philosophi*ing if ordered to, since that would &e doing so"ething wrong (i.e. so"ething that is not within the &ounds of -ustice$6 &ut he is o&ligated to accept and endure his punish"ent, as long as it was arrived at through proper -udicial procedures. %he latter is true, according to !ocrates, even though the punish"ent is wrong6 for &y suffering it, he is not hi"self doing anything wrong, &ut only enduring so"ething wrong. %his is perfectly consistent with !ocrates+ e'hortation never to doanything wrong. %hus, what at first appears to &e a &latant contradiction a"ong !ocrates+ various clai"s is fairly easily re"edied if we interpret the relevant passages in the Crito as "aking the clai" in ii rather than the clai" in i a&ove. %his interpretation is supported not only &y the fact that it helps to reconcile !ocrates+ see"ingly contradictory clai"s, &ut also &y the fact that !ocrates+ e'a"ples of o&edience to the state over one+s own o&-ections all involve having to endure so"ething, rather than having to do so"ething. ?e speaks in Crito 89&, for e'a"ple, of having to endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether &lows or &onds, and if it leads you into war to &e wounded or killed, you "ust o&ey. %hough he does not e'plicitly for"ulate his clai" as in ii a&ove, his focus is clearly on the issue of having to endure so"ething prescri&ed &y the state, over one+s own o&-ections. %herefore, it is consistent with the te't to interpret hi" as "aking only the clai" in ii, which is fully co"pati&le with his clai" that one "ust never do wrong, and with his clai" that under certain conditions one should refuse todo so"ething the state orders (such as refusing to capture so"eone for an un-ust e'ecution, or refusing to cease carrying out your divine "ission as long as you live$. )s for the plausi&ility of !ocrates+ view, ( &elieve that it is still overly de"anding, even when #ualified as in ii a&ove. (t+s unclear why any of the factors !ocrates "entioned should give the state such overriding "oral authority that one should &e "orally o&liged to endure e'ecution without resistance even in cases where the state is genuinely in the wrong. (t see"s "ore plausi&le to hold that if one stands to &e un-ustly e'ecuted, one can rightly resist this punish"ent (even if it would e#ually &e per"issi&le not to resist$. @ne could do this, ( think, without showing any conte"pt for the laws, or challenging their authority, since one still grants the state+s authority to do its &est to carry out the punish"ent, and si"ply asserts a "oral right to do one+s &est in turn to avoid such wrongful punish"ent. 0ut that+s a topic for another paper. C@77,N%)A/: Note, first of all, the concise, crisp introduction. %he pro&le" is plainly stated, and then ( e'plain clearly what (+" going to do in the paper11all in -ust a few sentences. %here+s no ra"&ling introduction with sentences starting with !ince the &eginning of ti"e, "ankind

has pondered the "ysteries of etc. %he style is straightforward, striving for clarity rather than literary flair. =argon is avoided as far as possi&le. )fter the introduction, the pro&le" is stated in "ore depth and detail, with te'tual references. Notice the spare use of #uotes. ( #uote only a few words here and there, where necessary to illustrate the points. %his "ight &e e'tended to a few sentences, if necessary, &ut &eware of over1#uoting and letting so"eone else+s words do your work for you. (%he worst "istake is -ust stringing together #uotes, which acco"plishes nothing.$ Notice also that te'tual references are given for the #uotes, as well as for paraphrased passages. (Nor"ally, (+d use footnotes and have co"plete citations, &ut (+" li"ited &y ht"l for"at here.$ Notice how, in descri&ing the pro&le", ( try to elucidate it, rather than -ust su""ari*ing it. !u""ary is not e'planation. (nstead, ( try to "ake clear where e'actly the tensions a"ong the various clai"s see" to arise andwhy, and how they apply to !ocrates+ own case. (+ve tried to go well &eyond the superficial state"ent of the pro&le" in the essay #uestion, to illu"inate and develop it. Now having done that, one "ight -ust stop and clai" to have answered the #uestion: No, the various positions are not consistent, and !ocrates is -ust contradicting hi"self. 0ut that would &e a very superficial paper. (nstead, ( tried to dig &eneath the surface a little &it, and to notice that the central clai" can &e interpreted in "ore than one way. !o ( first of all "ade a distinction &etween two possi&le interpretations, which in turn depended on a distinction &etween what you "ight &e co""anded to do and what you "ight &e co""anded to endure. %hat distinction ena&led "e to argue for an interpretation of what !ocrates is clai"ing a&out the "oral authority of the state that renders this clai" consistent with his other clai"s. (Noticing and e'ploiting distinctions is a large part of what doing philosophy is all a&out.$ Whether or not you agree with that particular argu"ent, you can see the difference &etween &ringing the discussion to that level of detail and "erely staying on the surface. !o even if you would have taken a different position, the point is that a good paper would still &e engaging with the issues at that level of depth, rather than re"aining on the surface. (f you think !ocrates really is contradicting hi"self, for e'a"ple, you "ight then also discuss the distinctions ( pointed out, &ut then argue for an interpretation along the lines of the first interpretation instead, despite the inconsistencies with other things he says. (@f course, you+d have to &e a&le to give an argu"ent for why the te't should &e understood in that way, despite the fact that !ocrates winds up with rather glaringly conflicting clai"s on that reading.$ )gain, notice that ( a" striving for clarity, precision and thoroughness, along with a straightforward organi*ation for the paper.