>Peter Medawar: “No one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief.”
### Goal
- Revise your best Unit Paper into a 1000-2000 word argumentative philosophy paper.
### Wild Success
- Finished product is clear, readable, informative, and persuasive
- Finished product has 0 errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation, or citations
- Finished product is the best paper you've ever written
### The Good News
- Your _topic_ and _thesis_ are already decided!
- You already know _what_ you want to say, so ask yourself "how can I say it better?" and "what extra evidence can I bring forward?"
### Basic Tasks
1. Remove the bold section _headings_ ("Objection:", "I argue", etc.)
2. Add a strong introduction
3. Add a strong conclusion
4. Do some additional outside research at the library, online, and in other books.
2. Add new arguments into the body of paper (at least one new argument)
3. Consider adding another objection and reply, or strengthen the objections you have
3. Add new quotations and citations to support your points
5. Triple-check for spelling, grammatical, or logical errors
### Polishing
1. Print and read your paper, and "grade" it yourself. _Grade mercilessly._
7. Make corrections, then print, and re-read again.
8. Repeat until you are satisfied.
9. Optional: Trade with a friend, and "grade" their paper
8. Turn it in!
### Revise
- You must _change_ things (order, arguments, etc.)
- And _add_ content
- Don't just add content, but also improve whatever needs improving
- Don't be too precious because the first paper passed -- improve it
## Introduction
1. Opening line
2. State the problem of the paper in general terms, perhaps mentioning the writers or books you will respond to.
4. State your specific thesis or truth claim
5. Sketch the outline of the paper
6. For example...
- Opening line:
- *Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics.*
- State the problem of the paper in general terms, perhaps mentioning the writers or books you will respond to.
- *It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). For example, where Kant teaches that one should never lie because truth-telling is an absolute duty, Aristotle might teach that honesty is an absolute duty that is compatible with the occasional white lie.*
- State your thesis:
- *In this paper, I shall argue that virtue ethics is superior to rival approaches in that it is more applicable and more human.*
- State the general outline of the paper:
- *I begin by discussing two objections to this thesis from the Kantian point of view. In section 2 I note some of the conceptual attractions of virtue theory, and finally conclude with responses to the Kantian objections and a suggestion for further research.*
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). For example, where Kant teaches that one should never lie because truth-telling is an absolute duty, Aristotle might teach that honesty is an absolute duty that is compatible with the occasional white lie. In this paper, I shall argue that virtue ethics is superior to rival approaches in that it is more applicable and more human. I begin by discussing two objections to this thesis from the Kantian point of view. In section 2 I note some of the conceptual attractions of virtue theory, and finally conclude with responses to the Kantian objections and a suggestion for further research.
### What _Not_ To Do
- Do not begin your essay along these lines: “Since the very dawn of time the problem of free will has been considered by many of the greatest and deepest thinkers in history.”
- Just be straightforward: "Many people believe CEOs are paid too much." or "Michael Eisner, in the height of his power at Disney, didn't just earn a six figure income -- he earned $100,000 three times a day. Is this too much?"
- "Samsung recently faced a public relations crisis when their latest phone model began bursting into flames. It might seem obvious that corporations have a moral and legal obligation to provide safe products."
### Body
- Feel free to use headings
- Use paragraphs, short or long: One thought, one paragraph
- Use examples
# Conclusions
1. Briefly summarize the argument of the paper.
2. Remind reader of thesis.
2. Zoom out to remind reader of broader significance of your claim.
3. Closing line (perhaps that echos, inverts, casts new light, challenges, or otherwise relates to opening line)
### What _Not_ To Do
Do not end with lines like: “So it can be seen from the above arguments that there are many different points of view about the free will problem.”
## Questions?
## Workshop -- get started