Philosophy

1
PHI 001: Introduction to Philosophy
UC Davis: Spring 2013
Paper Assignment #1
Papers are due on Monday, June 10, at the beginning of the Final Exam. [This overrides the due
date listed on the syllabus.]
NOTE: Please read all the instructions before you begin, and please follow the instructions!
‘REC’ one of the following arguments, in accordance with the instructions given below:
1. Galen Strawson’s argument against our having full moral responsibility for what we do. (This
presented in Ultimate Questions p. 86 and in the Supplement to Topic #1 posted on Smartsite
under ‘Paper Assignments’.)
2. Harry Frankfurt’s argument for compatibilism, as presented in the Supplement to Topic#2.
3. The argument against the Soul Theory of personal identity, presented in Ultimate Questions,
pp. 117-118.
4. Locke’s argument (involving the ‘Prince and Cobbler’ though experiment) against the Body
Theory of personal identity, presented in the Supplement to Topic #4, pp. 13-15.
5. Pick an argument of your own to REC. It must meet the following conditions:
(i) it must appear in Ultimate Questions, Chapters 3 – 6,
(ii) it must not have already been reconstructed, either in class or in Ultimate Questions,
(iii) you must get approval from your TA by Friday June 7, 5 pm. Specifically, you must
(either in an email or in person) quote the passage in which the argument appears, and
identify the main conclusion of the argument.
RECing an argument:
R: Reconstruct. Put the argument into standard form, so that it fits a valid pattern and
captures as much of the reasoning from the chosen passage as possible. Display the
pattern that it fits (in symbols) to the right of your reconstruction (in words). Here is an
example:
1. Anything that is maximally great exists in reality.
2. God is maximally great.
3. If God exists in reality, then theism is true.
– – –
∴ Theism is true.
All P1s are P2s
m is a P1
If m is a P2, then A
– – –
∴ A
E: Explain. For each premise in your reconstruction, mention it by name (its number)
and devote at least one sentence to explaining why that premise might seem plausible, at
least initially. Also, if there are any unfamiliar terms in the premise, take this chance to
explain what they mean. If the logical structure of the argument is somewhat complex,
you may wish to explain informally why the intended conclusion really does follow from
the given premises.
C: Criticize. After you’ve motivated each of the premises, focus on one particular
premise, mention it by name, and attack it: i.e., present, in detail, what you take to be the 2
most powerful reason(s) for thinking that the given premise is not true, or for thinking
that the premise is less plausible than the advocate of the argument took it to be.
If space permits, you may discuss a potential response to your criticism that
could be given by an advocate of the argument, and a reply (attacking the premise) to that
response.
Use the Cederblom and Paulsen for more detailed guidelines on the DOs and DON’Ts of
reconstructing arguments. Some tips:
– Be sure that you’ve correctly identified the main conclusion of the argument in question.
– Be sure that your reconstruction fits a valid pattern.
– Be sure that your reconstruction (in words) really does match the pattern (in symbols)
that you’ve written out.
– Be sure that none of your arguments contains any idle premises, i.e. premises that are not
needed to make the argument valid. (If a premise is idle in a given argument, then you
could simply delete that premise and the argument would still be valid. Such a premise is
doing no work.)
– Be sure that the premise you attack is not just obviously false – a ‘sitting duck’. It should
have some appeal; it should be the sort of premise that begins to seem doubtful only after
you’ve criticized it.
Hard Copy. The paper should be given a title, printed out, and stapled.
Length. Your paper should be 3-4 typed, double-spaced pages long (assuming a reasonable type
face and size and reasonable margins), NOT INCLUDING ANY QUOTATIONS OR
NUMBERED RECONSTRUCTIONS. This means the paper should include 3-4 pages of
ordinary text in paragraph form written by you. Most of that should be focused on a critical
evaluation of an argument.
Grading. You will be graded on the clarity and mechanics of your writing, on how well your
paper is organized, and most importantly, on how well you’ve explained and critically evaluated
an argument. Again, the critical component will be weighted the most heavily of the three: the
more original, insightful, and convincing your criticism of a premise, the better your grade will
be. There is no mechanical recipe for coming up with interesting criticisms: it takes a lot of time,
hard thinking, and creative spark.
Some rough guidelines
A range: excellent mechanics, extremely clear and accurate explanation of an
argument, unusually insightful/creative/original/persuasive critical
points – these must go beyond anything that has been said in lecture,
discussion section, or the readings, and must be sufficiently interesting
and non-obvious that it would take some hard-thinking to come up with
them
B range: good mechanics, very solid explanation of an argument with few or no
mistakes of fact or terminology, critical points that are on-target,
relevant, and persuasive – though maybe not quite so dazzling as what
one would find in an ‘A range’ paper. 3
C range: some problems with mechanics OR some errors or lack of clarity in
explaining an argument OR an off-target or unconvincing critical
evaluation
D range and below: two or more of the following: serious mechanical problems, major errors
or obscurity in explaining an argument, badly off-target or obviously
unconvincing critical evaluation
Outside Sources and Citations
You are not expected to consult outside sources in writing your paper. You are permitted to this,
of course, but a better way to spend your time is to get clear on what you think about the issues,
and about how to express your own thoughts as clearly and precisely as possible. Any sources
you do consult must be cited at the end of the paper, and any ideas or terminology that you take
from the outside source must be indicated in footnotes. Failure to appropriately cite outside
sources brings up the issue of . . .
Academic Integrity
I take plagiarism and other violations of the standards of academic integrity very seriously.
Students are responsible for knowing what constitutes inappropriate behavior in this regard;
university policies on the matter can be found in the Spring 2013 Class Schedule and Registration
Guide. See in particular the University of California Standards of Conduct for Students. Any
student who violates these standards on an exam or assignment will be referred to Student
Judicial Affairs.