PAPER ASSIGNMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS F06.

You are asked to write a 7-10 page (2500 - 3000 word) paper on a topic of your own choosing, but which must be very closely related to material covered in this course. Your paper should engage at least one, and probably several different readings we have discussed in class.

DUE DATE: Your paper is due on 30 November at the beginning of class.

RULES FOR WRITTEN WORK IN PHILOSOPHY: BEFORE HANDING IN YOUR WORK, READ THROUGH THESE RULES AND MAKE SURE YOUR PAPER FOLLOWS THEM!

1) All assignments are due at beginning of class on assignment date. Papers that arrive later than the beginning of class will be marked one day late. Late papers will receive discounted grades [One grade lower for each day the assignment is late: ex: B => B-]. If students are not in class on the due date, papers will be marked two days 'late.' (Exceptions will be made for reasonable excuses (like loss of a limb). This means that you absolutely must not skip class in order to finish your paper. Better to come to class and turn your paper in the next day, otherwise your paper will be marked two days late instead of one day late.

2) All out-of-class work must be neatly typed. Put your name and the date you turn in your assignment on the first page, and staple your paper in the upper left-hand corner. Include an informative title on term papers and any exam essays longer than two pages. Number all pages, and label them so that they can be easily reorganized if they come un-stapled and mixed up. Keep a copy for yourself in case disaster strikes the copy you turn in. Papers will not be graded if they are not neatly typed, stapled, have no page numbers, lack a title, or lack the author's name.

3) At the end of the first section of your paper [first or second page] you must include a Thesis Statement of the form "In this paper I will..." followed by a clear statement of your project and the main points of your argument. In the last section of your paper, you must include a conclusory statement mirroring the thesis statement, in which you explain what you've done in your paper and note any limitations of the argument you've offered. The thesis statement and conclusory statement should be in italics or underlined to clearly set them apart from the body of your paper.

4) Citations, endnotes, and references: Any formally acceptable citation format will be accepted. Many people use the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA Handbook. I myself prefer the Social Sciences format, as found in such journals as Philosophical Studies or Social Choice and Welfare. Your paper must include at least one formal textual reference, and will almost certainly include quite a few. Whenever you attribute a claim or position to someone, you should include a formal citation (with page number) verifying that you're accurately representing that person's view. When I'm grading, missing citations bring out the BEAST in me! Clearly, it is in your interest to keep that Beast at bay, so when in doubt, include a cite. Your philosophy paper is not a research paper, and you do not need to refer to any sources that are not listed on the class syllabus. Long quotations should be single-spaced and inset from the left margin.

You are free to discuss your work with other students: if writing assignments cause you to have philosophical discussions outside of class, so much the better. [If they don't, you're either doing something wrong or you need some new friends!] But of course the work you hand in must be your own and no one else's. Plagiarism or misuse of the work of others is obviously prohibited, and it's remarkable how frequently we catch people who attempt to misappropriate the work of others. There are therefore prudential as well as moral reasons to avoid misappropriation or misrepresentation of the work of others.

5) This is a writing assignment, so the quality of your writing counts (of course). If your spelling or grammar is generally bad, obviously this will count against you when I grade your paper. A few minor errors will not be a problem, but you should carefully proofread and run your paper through a spell-checker. In addition to being grammatical, however, your writing should be good, clear writing. 'A' writing is sparkling, clear, easy-to read prose. 'B' writing is grammatically correct and acceptably clear. 'C' writing is writing that includes grammatical errors, or is ambiguous and unclear.

Your paper should explain any examples you use, should be written in a standard, formal, clear prose. Do not address your paper to me, your instructor-- it should be written in such a way that any informed reader could make sense of the argument you offer. Some Good Advice: Do not use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice; check your paper to make sure you do not any words out; use a spell-checker to catch any spaling mistackes.

6) Self-reference is not always inappropriate in academic writing, but many kinds of self-reference are inappropriate in philosophical writing. [Ex: It's not inappropriate to write "I will argue..." or "I have argued that..." but it is almost always inappropriate to write "I feel that..." or "I believe that..."] There are other appropriate and inappropriate ways to use self-reference in formal academic work, and if you're interested you may look them up in a contemporary style manual. If you have any doubts about whether self-reference is appropriate in a given context, don't use it.

7) A Related Point: Do not tell me what you "feel" about the reading of the claims of authors you discuss: philosophy is made up of arguments, not feelings. [I will circle in red ink every instance in which the word 'feel' or its close relatives are inappropriately used in your paper.] Misuse of this word [the word 'feel'] and its near relatives brings out the BEAST in me and in most other people who grade philosophy papers. In a similar vein, don't tell me what you believe unless you also provide reasons in support of your beliefs. As a person, I may care what you feel or believe. As your philosophy professor, I care only about what you can defend with reason and argument. When reading or grading your class work, I will assume the second of these roles. If an author presents an argument for a claim C, critically reconstruct the argument-- don't tell me that the author "feels that C." In fact, if you're at all unsure about its proper use, eliminate the word "feels" from your philosophical vocabulary until you clearly understand.

Not all philosophical traditions hold that argument is the substance of philosophy, but this is the tradition I know and love, and it is the only tradition I am qualified to teach you. The standards of that tradition are the standards that will be used in my evaluation of your work, and probably in any philosophy course you take at this University: for the purposes of this class you are required to provide, examine, and analyze arguments. (Remember: Rhetorical questions are not arguments!)

8) The purportedly "gender neutral" male pronoun is no longer an accepted convention in academic writing. Most publishers and journals won't accept papers that include it, and most newspapers don't allow its use. This means that you should not refer to "man" or "mankind" [use 'human' and 'humankind'] nor should you use the "impersonal" 'he' or 'him' in your writing. There are more and less graceful ways to avoid this traditional convention, but choice among them is left to your taste. Since I myself have become convinced that exclusive use of the male pronoun is sexist, the older convention now annoys me. I recognize, however, that some people earnestly and honestly disagree. If you are one of these people and are deeply offended by the requirement that you adopt a nonsexist convention, I am willing to discuss the problem with you. If you offer me an argument for the old convention that I haven't considered or heard before, I will relax the requirement of nonsexism for your case. Popular bad arguments for the older convention include aesthetic, tradition-based, symbol-versus-substance-based, and neutrality-based arguments as well as arguments based on downright sexism. [Aesthetic: "The non-sexist alternatives are all clumsy!" Tradition: "It's always been done that way!" Symbols over substance: "Pronouns are merely symbolic, and the move to replace the male pronoun with a gender-neutral alternative places symbolism over substance." Neutrality: "The word 'man' referrs equally to men and women when used as an impersonal pronoun." (Q: Without absurdity, can we really speak of "the average man's menstrual cramps"?) Sexism: "Who cares whether the tradition is gender loaded? We should continue to use it anyway!"]

9) Picking a paper topic: You must write on an issue closely related to material covered in lecture and/or class readings, and you are required to write a paper in which you disagree with at least some claim made by some author studied in class (and clearly to explain the reasons for your disagreement). Part of your paper should present and analyze one or more arguments offered in class readings. In your philosophy papers, you should not simply report the views of some philosopher or other-- you should critically evaluate the position and critically analyze the arguments offered. This means, of course, that it will be necessary to express those arguments clearly in your own words. I may (or may not) suggest topics at some time during the semester, but students usually do better when they choose their own topics.

A suggestion: To find a topic, start with some argument you're inclined to disagree with. Begin by putting the argument in your own words, clearly separating premises from conclusion. Then consider the plausibility of the premises, the validity or inductive strength of the inferences used, and use these considerations to evaluate the strength of the argument. If after this exercise you still disagree with the conclusion of the argument, explain why and show why the argument fails. Then consider whether an alternate positive argument can be developed out of your critical analysis: if so, develop it. If not, consider the broader philosophical significance of your critical analysis.

Typical Paper Grades:

(These have been adapted, in part, from George Rainbolt’s Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers.)

A Papers: In almost every class, there are a few (usually a very few) truly Excellent papers. 'A's are reserved for these few. Such papers are "very good," in that they are well-written, meet all criteria set down in the Rules above, are clearly organized, well presented, give appropriately sympathetic readings of philosophers discussed, and include some original critical or positive philosophical work. 'A' and 'B' papers have these properties in common. But in addition to this, 'A' papers include some surprising or exceptionally creative and insightful philosophical work-- this might be an especially insightful and original critique of someone else's view, or an especially creative and original argument. There is no formula that can be followed to make sure that your papers are 'A' papers-- excellence may take many forms, and can be recognized, but not taught. Except in a very few unusual cases (so rare that they hardly need to be mentioned), dilligence is necessary for excellence. It is never sufficient. Talent is always necessary for excellence, but rarely (again, almost never) sufficient.

In upper level undergraduate courses, 'A's are reserved for graduate quality or near-graduate quality work. In graduate courses, 'A's are reserved for publishable or very-nearly-publishable quality work.

B Papers: Most very good papers are B (or B+) papers. B papers are well-written, meet all criteria set down in the Rules above, are clearly organized, well presented, give appropriately sympathetic readings of philosophers discussed, and include some original critical or positive philosophical work. B+ papers include exceptional (that is, significantly above average) philosophical insight or original argumentation.

C Papers: Papers that are average (C+) or somewhat below average (C) receive grades in the 'C' range. Such papers usually include some of the following problems: serious grammar/spelling problems, inadequate presentation (or actual misrepresentation) of the views or arguments under discussion, lack of clear organization, lack of original analysis or argumentation, fallacious inferences, philosophically inappropriate appeals to authority (such as religious authority), failure to follow The Rules.

D Papers: D papers are papers that are significantly below average. They contain an unacceptable number of grammatical errors and typos, poorly constructed arguments, inadequate references, seriously inadequate representation of the arguments under discussion, serious lack of organization, and other problems.