– 6 pages (but my draft is only 5 so can you edit what i have and expand to make it 6 pages)
– i really want the essay to argue that these marginalized groups have the right to be skeptics and that their feelings are natural
– please use the sources i hve provided below in th references and please use the these 2 sources:
– Leason, J., “Forced and coerced sterilization of Indigenous women: Strengths to build upon.” Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien vol. 67,7 (2021): 525-527. doi:10.46747/cfp.6707525
– Scharff, Darcell P. et al. More than Tuskegee: Understanding Mistrust about Research Participation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 21, no. 3, 2010, pp. 879-97. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.0.0323. (especially this one asi have not used it yet)
the assesment:
1. Did you properly identify and reconstruct the relevant positions?
2. Do you provide reasoned arguments and evidence for your position?
3. Do you construct a plausible counter–argument to your position, and defend your position against likely critiques? (Please see the “Guide for Writing a Philosophy Paper”
4. Did you use relevant course material? Did you choose relevant and useful external sources and utilize them well?
5. Is the essay structurally and stylistically sound, including referencing style? (Only papers with perfect or nearly perfect grammar, clear prose, and paragraph structure will be considered for A or A+ grades.
2. Do you provide reasoned arguments and evidence for your position?
3. Do you construct a plausible counter–argument to your position, and defend your position against likely critiques? (Please see the “Guide for Writing a Philosophy Paper”
4. Did you use relevant course material? Did you choose relevant and useful external sources and utilize them well?
5. Is the essay structurally and stylistically sound, including referencing style? (Only papers with perfect or nearly perfect grammar, clear prose, and paragraph structure will be considered for A or A+ grades.
Guide for writing a philosophy paper
Argument
Arguments are distinct from assertions. An assertion, such as “Plato was wise,” stands or falls on its own. It may be true or false, but it is NOT an argument. Arguments require premises that rationally support an assertion as a conclusion. Think of your premises as reasons why a reader
would have to agree with your conclusion. This implies that arguments have a certain structure: more precisely, they are collections of premises that reasonably support conclusions (and maybe some sub–conclusions along the way). An argument is NOT a collection of facts, each standing on its own. (This is often acceptable in social science papers, but NOT in philosophy.)
Arguments are distinct from assertions. An assertion, such as “Plato was wise,” stands or falls on its own. It may be true or false, but it is NOT an argument. Arguments require premises that rationally support an assertion as a conclusion. Think of your premises as reasons why a reader
would have to agree with your conclusion. This implies that arguments have a certain structure: more precisely, they are collections of premises that reasonably support conclusions (and maybe some sub–conclusions along the way). An argument is NOT a collection of facts, each standing on its own. (This is often acceptable in social science papers, but NOT in philosophy.)
Thesis
Any good paper will have a clearly demarcated centre of argument. It will be a specific point for which you will argue. As such, your thesis gives structure to the rest of your paper. It succinctly tells the reader what to expect, and sets up the rest of the paper as an argument – an argument whose end goal is to give support to your main point, stated explicitly in the thesis. It is perfectly acceptable—in fact, clear and concise!—to flag the thesis with turns of phrase like the following:
I will argue that….
It is my thesis that…
It is my contention that… etc.
1. Your thesis should be at the beginning of the paper, in the introduction.
2. Do not make your thesis overly complex. Especially in short papers, it is best to have a focussed thesis. The best papers usually stick to arguing for one point. Do not spread yourself too thin! (Avoid “three prong” theses like you were taught in secondary school.)
3. Make sure your thesis is at least somewhat contentious, i.e. something that others could reasonably disagree with. “I will argue that the French Revolution began in 1789,” or “It is my thesis that there is a difference between rationalism and empiricism,” are boring
theses. They cannot possibly lead to interesting papers.
4. Following from the previous point, avoid what is called the “So what?” problem. You do
NOT want to hand in a nicely written paper that supports a view that no body finds interesting. Find balance between a point you can argue for and one that will turn heads.
Bad thesis: “In this paper I will show that same sex marriage is a contentious issue.”
Better thesis: “The controversy surrounding gay marriage is telling of a deep–seated heterosexism in North–American society.”
Even better thesis: “Since it has been shown that serious same–sex relationships last longer than serious straight relationships, and since marriage is considered an immensely important institution in North America, I will argue that these premises lead one to conclude that allowing same–sex marriage is necessary for the salvation of the institution of marriage.” (Now that’s a thesis that will turn some heads!)
Any good paper will have a clearly demarcated centre of argument. It will be a specific point for which you will argue. As such, your thesis gives structure to the rest of your paper. It succinctly tells the reader what to expect, and sets up the rest of the paper as an argument – an argument whose end goal is to give support to your main point, stated explicitly in the thesis. It is perfectly acceptable—in fact, clear and concise!—to flag the thesis with turns of phrase like the following:
I will argue that….
It is my thesis that…
It is my contention that… etc.
1. Your thesis should be at the beginning of the paper, in the introduction.
2. Do not make your thesis overly complex. Especially in short papers, it is best to have a focussed thesis. The best papers usually stick to arguing for one point. Do not spread yourself too thin! (Avoid “three prong” theses like you were taught in secondary school.)
3. Make sure your thesis is at least somewhat contentious, i.e. something that others could reasonably disagree with. “I will argue that the French Revolution began in 1789,” or “It is my thesis that there is a difference between rationalism and empiricism,” are boring
theses. They cannot possibly lead to interesting papers.
4. Following from the previous point, avoid what is called the “So what?” problem. You do
NOT want to hand in a nicely written paper that supports a view that no body finds interesting. Find balance between a point you can argue for and one that will turn heads.
Bad thesis: “In this paper I will show that same sex marriage is a contentious issue.”
Better thesis: “The controversy surrounding gay marriage is telling of a deep–seated heterosexism in North–American society.”
Even better thesis: “Since it has been shown that serious same–sex relationships last longer than serious straight relationships, and since marriage is considered an immensely important institution in North America, I will argue that these premises lead one to conclude that allowing same–sex marriage is necessary for the salvation of the institution of marriage.” (Now that’s a thesis that will turn some heads!)
Introductions Avoid meandering at the beginning of papers, which is a very common mistake. Your secondary school teachers might have told you to start with the general, and move to the specific in your intro, but this is a bad idea. Here are examples of bad and better starts to the paper:
Bad start: “Since the beginning of time, mankind has…”
Still bad start: “Kant was born in…”
Better start: “In the “Transcendental Doctrine of Elements” in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
argues that…” The idea is that you should jump right in. Avoid excessive stage–setting. Make your aims and claims clear, and justify them without too much hot air. Your introduction should do 3 things:
1. Clearly state the issue/controversy/problem your essay will address.
2. Mention the range of current views on the issue, but leave the bulk of the details as regards these views for the body of the paper.
3. State your thesis, i.e. your position within a debate, or your take on the problem and how it should be solved, etc.; again, leave most of the details for the paper!
Body and Structure The paper should have an organic structure. The sooner you drop the classical “5 paragraph paper” from secondary school, the better. Arguments are not served by being forced into a mechanical writing procedure or artificial structure. Most papers progress like this:
1. Intro: good papers usually start off with introductions that motivate the discussion to come. If there is a major point you are addressing in the paper, it should be in the
introduction. The reader should know what is coming in the paper after reading your intro! For other specifics, see above.
2. Definitions: After your introduction, you can take a paragraph or two to define key technical terms if your essay contains a number of such terms. If it does not, then do not include a definitions section. Also, try NOT to use overly technical language. Sometimes it is necessary, but plain English is always preferred.
3. Exegesis/Exposition: This is where you offer your charitable reconstructions (or interpretations) of the other positions you’re addressing, e.g. from course authors or your own independent research. Stick to only those parts of each author’s position that you will be addressing in the critical part of your paper.
4. Critical Argument: finally, the bulk of your paper should be devoted to a critical discussion of the various points in the debate, giving the reader reasons why he or she should agree with your thesis, and not the positions of those with whom you disagree. If you have done a good job characterising their arguments, then you can now point to any inadequacies with those arguments. Are any of the essential premises false? Is the argument poorly structured, so that even true premises do not support the conclusion? Is the argument relevant to the debate? Etc
5. Counter Argument: Because philosophy papers never let the facts speak for themselves,there may be more than one plausible argument that is consistent with the facts. The best philosophy papers will address not only the possible flaws in other positions, but possible flaws in your own argument! If you can address these possible probles, and show your reader how your argument can ultimately handle them, this greatly strengthens the paper.
6. Conclusions: over–rated, and best avoided in most papers. If you have nothing else of substance to say after you discharge counter–arguments, then just end it there.
Bad start: “Since the beginning of time, mankind has…”
Still bad start: “Kant was born in…”
Better start: “In the “Transcendental Doctrine of Elements” in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
argues that…” The idea is that you should jump right in. Avoid excessive stage–setting. Make your aims and claims clear, and justify them without too much hot air. Your introduction should do 3 things:
1. Clearly state the issue/controversy/problem your essay will address.
2. Mention the range of current views on the issue, but leave the bulk of the details as regards these views for the body of the paper.
3. State your thesis, i.e. your position within a debate, or your take on the problem and how it should be solved, etc.; again, leave most of the details for the paper!
Body and Structure The paper should have an organic structure. The sooner you drop the classical “5 paragraph paper” from secondary school, the better. Arguments are not served by being forced into a mechanical writing procedure or artificial structure. Most papers progress like this:
1. Intro: good papers usually start off with introductions that motivate the discussion to come. If there is a major point you are addressing in the paper, it should be in the
introduction. The reader should know what is coming in the paper after reading your intro! For other specifics, see above.
2. Definitions: After your introduction, you can take a paragraph or two to define key technical terms if your essay contains a number of such terms. If it does not, then do not include a definitions section. Also, try NOT to use overly technical language. Sometimes it is necessary, but plain English is always preferred.
3. Exegesis/Exposition: This is where you offer your charitable reconstructions (or interpretations) of the other positions you’re addressing, e.g. from course authors or your own independent research. Stick to only those parts of each author’s position that you will be addressing in the critical part of your paper.
4. Critical Argument: finally, the bulk of your paper should be devoted to a critical discussion of the various points in the debate, giving the reader reasons why he or she should agree with your thesis, and not the positions of those with whom you disagree. If you have done a good job characterising their arguments, then you can now point to any inadequacies with those arguments. Are any of the essential premises false? Is the argument poorly structured, so that even true premises do not support the conclusion? Is the argument relevant to the debate? Etc
5. Counter Argument: Because philosophy papers never let the facts speak for themselves,there may be more than one plausible argument that is consistent with the facts. The best philosophy papers will address not only the possible flaws in other positions, but possible flaws in your own argument! If you can address these possible probles, and show your reader how your argument can ultimately handle them, this greatly strengthens the paper.
6. Conclusions: over–rated, and best avoided in most papers. If you have nothing else of substance to say after you discharge counter–arguments, then just end it there.