Phil 2990B Spring, 2024 Don Loeb
TERM PAPER ASSIGNMENT:
This assignment counts for one-third of your course average.
No matter what your average, you must complete all requirements in order to pass the course.
This paper should be typed and double-spaced. Turn in a hard copy of it to me, either in person or in my physical mailbox at school, and keep a copy in case of emergency! It is due no later than the start of class on Wednesday, April 17, 2022. Here is what I say on the syllabus about late papers:
I don’t give extensions on papers unless there is a very serious reason. (“I have too much work” is not a serious reason.) I accept late work, within reason, but I take off in proportion to how late it is. You cannot just assume that I will accept late work indefinitely. If your paper might be more than a few days late, you should seek my permission in advance.
I really hope that some of you will begin soon and allow yourself enough time to do an excellent job (and to take my help!)
Assignment:
Write a 7 to 12 page (double spaced) philosophy paper on a narrowly focused issue in political philosophy. Never stretch or pad your paper. Find an argument or a small, closely related set of arguments in the literature on political philosophy and focus on that. A big part of your job (though I can help!) is to narrow your focus to a project you can do well. It is much better to do a thorough job on a small issue, than to pick a big issue but leave a lot to be said. You should secure my approval in advance! (If your proposal is reasonably thought of as concerning political philosophy, I will almost surely approve a version of it.) If you need help generating ideas, please see me. HINT: Writing about something that we will cover before the second test will save you time in preparing for that test, and leave you in a better position to take it. Writing about older stuff means you have a firmer grasp, but would be expected to go a bit farther than where class brought you. Writing about other issues allows you to pursue interests not addressed in the class.
Typically, when you write a philosophy paper, you have two main tasks, although they might end up somewhat interwoven. You explain someone’s argument (or closely-related set of arguments) as carefully and as sympathetically as possible. Second, you critically evaluate (pro and con) the arguments, including relevant component arguments, considering how the author could reply (where there are things they could plausibly say). You probably shouldn’t do that in exactly this order. If you tell me too much of the argument before you start evaluating, chances are you will end up having to restate it later in the paper. Not good. It’s better to give a general overview and then do the specifics as you prepare to evaluate them. Critical evaluation often includes arguments assessing ambiguities in the work you are addressing. (“Did Smith mean A or B? I’ll examine both possibilities and argue that . . . .”)
To generate a substantial paper on a focused issue, one has to be thorough, considering relevant alternative interpretations, responses, objections to (components) of your argument, and possible modifications your target could make to (partially or fully) avoid some or all of the worries you raise. If you simply agree with an argument or set of arguments, you are unlikely to have much to say that is of interest. But, you can defend a view you find plausible against serious (non-silly) objections. This often amounts to writing a paper about something in an article that is objecting to the one that you wish to defend. You are still evaluating someone’s arguments.
Taking on something too big would make it very likely that you’d just end up offering vague generalizations but never really developing an idea or fully evaluating an argument. That’s not what we want. We want fairness, thoroughness, accuracy, and most importantly, clarity. You can find topics that could work with respect to virtually anything we have read or might read in this course, or in books and articles on any number of related number issues in political philosophy. I can help. The important thing is to make your decision soon and then get to work. You need to leave yourself time—days, not minutes—to polish things at the end so that you achieve the clarity and thoroughness you’re aiming for.
You need not–and probably should not—do any library/online research to do this paper well, once you have found something to write about. But unless you want to write about material assigned for the course (which is awesome but not required) you will need to find a target—something to bounce your reasoning off of (typically a small piece of an article or book). Usually the “small piece” would be anything from a paragraph or two to a few pages. It’s a very bad idea to just kind of work your way through an entire article and make comments here and there. That’s not the kind of focus you want. On the other hand, your paper should go beyond what was said in class. It’s not a book report on my (or anyone else’s) thoughts. It’s your own critical work.
There is a variety of great research tools available online. You can access Google Scholar (which can be very comprehensive) from your computer without going through the library. But you can also access the Howe Library online (by clicking “connect from off-campus” if you are off campus). There you can find PhilPapers and the Philosopher’s Index, two great research databases.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) is more authoritative than Wikipedia (which isn’t all bad). Several of your teachers in the Philosophy Department have contributed to it. You probably wouldn’t want to write about an entry in the encyclopedia itself (although that is not entirely out of the question). Rather, by looking at an entry, you can learn a lot about an area of political philosophy and find a nice bibliography at the end. You might select a few articles from the bibliography to investigate further. Skimming abstracts is a good way to figure out whether a paper looks at all promising. Remember, you’re just looking for an argument or closely related set of arguments that you can go to town on. (Encyclopedia articles labor to be objective. So they often aren’t really taking a philosophical position. Consequently there’s not much for you to say about them in most cases.) I also have a bunch of books on political philosophy, including other works by some of our authors and maybe an anthology or two. And I can help you look for a topic or talk to you about what might be promising or where to look.
Once you find your target, you might want to resist consulting other literature about the subject, for now. You would certainly have to cite it, in order to maintain academic honesty. But your paper would be less original and less interesting (and less good) if it just ping-ponged among other people’s arguments. That is more like a research paper. I want to see you thinking on your own—in a structured setting. The research (at this point) comes largely from your own head! Here again, I can help. (The earlier you begin, the more I can help, including meeting with you, perhaps remotely, over University holidays and weekends. I might be able to read small portions of your paper that you are struggling with, and with sufficient advance warning I can talk through your strategy with you, assuming I have time. At a minimum, you really should talk to me about what your question—see below—is. That is not a requirement, but it is very foolish not to consult me at least once!)
Hint: It’s easiest to write about something someone says that makes you mad or seems to get things really wrong, But if you do, you still have to be fair to them!
Start with a brief intro in which you do nothing but 1) say what question you plan to address, and 2) give a semi-brief, but informative “roadmap” of how you will proceed and what you intend to show. “I will present Smith’s argument and critically analyze it” is not at all adequate. The roadmap is a guide to your paper. (I make and follow an outline, but I write the roadmap last—once I know for sure what I actually did.) In the main part of the paper you need to do the following, but not necessarily in order, since it is almost always better to finish one issue before turning to the next (see above): Spend a couple or more pages (totals will vary) clearly explaining the position or arguments you wish to evaluate. Spend a few pages explaining the problem(s) with the arguments in question (either problems you think count against the view, or charges against which you wish to defend the view.) Continue the argument, giving due consideration to reasonable objections that could be given to your argument (including any modifications that might be made to the original one) and responses to those responses, etc. Leave no stone unturned. (That is why you must pick a very focused topic.) Finally, conclude by saying (briefly) where your paper leaves us, including any philosophical problems that remain in the (near) neighborhood of the one(s) you have discussed. Throughout your paper, aim for maximum clarity, complete understanding of the position or argument you are considering, fair and thorough consideration of the arguments on all sides, and sensible organization. Revise and edit your papers carefully before submitting them!
Issue families within which you might want to seek a more specific philosophical topic to write about:
-Marxist critiques of liberal arguments/positions in political philosophy: (CB Macpherson, e.g.)
-Communitarian critiques of liberal arguments/positions in political philosophy: (M Sandel, Charles Taylor, e.g.)
-Feminist critiques of liberal arguments/positions in political philosophy (Susan Okin, e.g.)
-Utilitarian political philosophy (JS Mill, Julia Driver, e.g.)
-Mill’s harm principle (or a later criticism or defense of it)
-Egalitarianism (GA Cohen, e.g.)
-Issues concerning property and taxation, consent, the role and/or limits of government, redistribution of wealth, public goods, distribution of widely-needed resources, civil disobedience, justice, public reason, church and state, public education about citizenship, toleration.
-Questions about how to interpret one of our authors or someone else from the history of political philosophy
-Questions about arguments made by more modern defenders or critics of Hobbesian or Lockean approaches and the like.
-Questions about Rawls or Nozick, how to interpret one of them on a particular issue, criticisms, arguments Nozick makes against Rawls, etc.
It might also be possible to come up with something interesting about a contemporary issue (like presidential immunity—but not the Constitutional questions) and its relation to some theme in political philosophy. But this is not as easy as it seems and has to be handled delicately if it is to generate a good philosophy paper.
Anyway, that is just a partial list. Although there are a lot of great paper topics, it’s also easy to do something that really isn’t what we’re looking for. So, it’s really important for you to check your topic with me and to let me help you if you have any doubts.
Citations and Academic Honesty:
I take questions of academic honesty very seriously. Knowing, as I do, that plagiarism is often unintentional, I want to make my position clear now. Anyone submitting work that is not (in whole or in part) his or her own, or anyone submitting work that has been or will be submitted for credit in another course is committing a serious academic offense. This includes papers written or researched in whole or in part by anyone else. It also includes ideas taken from others in whole or in part even if you paraphrase (see below), unless the amount taken is small and the source(s) clearly identified. On the rare occasions on which it has come to my attention that someone has committed such an offense, I have always turned the cases over to the proper authorities. That is still my policy and it is a University rule I must obey.
I assume that none of you has any intention of committing such an offense, and I am not out to get anyone who is conscientiously trying to follow the rules. If you are, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about. But, once in a while a problem comes to light, and when it does, it is very effective to show up at the hearing with a document such as this in my hand, and to testify that it was handed out to all of my students. So that’s what I do.
In any case, most of the problems that come to light involve more subtle forms of plagiarism, often stemming from confusion as to what is required. Remember, this is UVM policy (found in the Code of Academic Integrity https://www.uvm.edu/sconduct/faculty, and accepted in some form or other pretty much everywhere). Read it! Your teachers may have specific rules, but we cannot weaken University requirements nor impose punishments of our own. We have obligations under the policy, just as you do (including the requirement to turn cases of serious misconduct over to the relevant authorities). For example, the Code says that you have to cite any sources that you use. I am not allowed to let you out of this (nor would I want to). But the Code doesn’t specify a particular form of citation. Some teachers care a lot more than others about this. I am in the middle. For example, I need more information when you’re not citing something that I just put on Brightspace!
Since I take academic honesty very seriously, it is important for me to spell out and remind you of certain RULES:
It is permissible to quote, in small amounts, as long as you make it clear that you are doing so (by using quotation marks or blocking off larger quotations) and footnoting each time. (Remember, I am only talking about the rules here. Quoting instead of explaining is still a bad way to write a philosophy paper!) I do not care much about note style, as long as you provide enough information so that I can check the reference easily if I choose to. (Other teachers care more, so it is wise to ask.) For me, you may refer to Brightspace articles as “BS,” plus the author’s name and page reference, in the text, e.g., (BS, Locke, p. 39). Quotations from other sources need a bit more, and if your paper focuses on a work not assigned for this course, please ask me whether I need a copy.
IMPORTANT: A close paraphrase (which changes a word or even several words) can constitute plagiarism. Changing a few words does not help you to explain what the author means; it merely disguises the fact that you are quoting. Explaining it is part of your job. Generally, it is better to put the idea completely into your own words, although it is sometimes wise to quote as well, so as to let the reader (me) judge for himself. In any case, an explanation is different than a paraphrase.
A pretty good general rule is that you quote only when: 1) you need to prove that somebody said something or 2) when their specific words matter and have to be interpreted.
Also, you must footnote any time you use an idea that you drew from another source. If, in your reading, you come across an argument you want to use (even with some modification) you must inform the reader that you are doing so, and tell him (me) where it came from, as before. Violations of this rule are considered to be very serious. (The degree of specificity required depends on the circumstances. If you are mentioning a point that came up in class, you may not remember who said it. In that case, just say that someone said it in class.)
For my classes, you may not use chatbots (“cheatbots”[1]) at any stage of the writing process. You may not use them to do research for your paper, to give you ideas about how to organize or write it, and certainly not to write your paper (or any part of it) for you. I view these programs as threats to your education and integrity and I would recommend expulsion for anyone caught using one.
If you have any question about any of this or want to make sure that your work is in compliance, please ask before you turn your work in! Don’t wait until it is too late! And remember, I’m not out to get anyone. It’s easy to follow these rules, and if you do so, you won’t have any problems.
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheatbot
