“Critical Discussion” Paper

We have not had time to discuss every interesting argument in every one of our readings. Your job is to select an argument we have not thoroughly discussed and write a critical discussion of it. Read all of these instructions before you start.

Step #1 - Pick an article.

• Do not select one of the very short readings, like Gray or White.
• You can choose one of the recommended readings on the syllabus.
• If you’re feeling adventurous, you can choose an article we didn’t read.
• Some good ones are Pollan (“An Animal’s Place,” on the class website), Warren (AE chap. 9), Francione (AR chap. 5), and Diamond (AR chap. 4).

Step #2 - Pick an argument from that article.

• The argument you pick should be central to the article and substantial, not peripheral or extremely brief.
• The argument should probably be one we haven’t discussed exhaustively. This can be important, since you’re going to need to say something of your own about it. That could be hard if the argument was already thoroughly discussed in class.

• You’ll want to select an argument you find unconvincing, since you’ll be making objections.
• In some cases, it might make sense to cover two arguments. It depends on the article.

Step #3 - Get your article/argument approved. Deadline November 3.

• Your proposal just has to specify an article, argument, and some pages. Example: “Tom Regan’s article 'The Case for Animal Rights.' I will discuss his attack on Utilitarianism on pages 82-84.”
• If I think there’s high potential for you to write a good paper on that article/argument, I’ll approve your proposal. If not, I’ll make a suggestion for improving your proposal.
• Send your proposal to me by email. (jkazez@smu.edu) Just put your proposal in your message. Don’t attach a document.
• I will reply to you in a day or two.

Step #4 - Be aware of these important rules.

• Do not use any other sources besides your article and class notes.
• That means: do not use other texts, and definitely don’t turn to the internet.
• Read the plagiarism policy on the syllabus. Take it very seriously.

Step #5 - Outline the paper. Papers that don’t have this structure will receive a failing grade. Suggested lengths for each section are approximate.

I. Summary of the article as a whole. (1 page)

II. Explanation of the argument and the role it plays in the article. (2 pages)

III. Rebuttal of the target argument (1 page)

IV. Discussion of how the author might respond to your rebuttal and whether that response is adequate (1 page)

V. Constructive discussion. Now that you have rebutted the argument, think more constructively. Despite its flaws, is there anything insightful about the argument? Could it become more plausible with some sort of modification? Is there something else in the article that’s insightful? What are your own ideas on the topic? (1 page)

Step #6 (optional) - Submit rough draft of sections I – II Deadine November 10.

• If you’re at all uncertain of the way you’ve represented the argument, you should show me a draft, since problems in these sections will detract from the whole paper.
• If you choose to do this, send me sections I-II (only) in the body of an email message (not an attachment). I will give you feedback as soon as possible.
• I will only read one rough draft per person, so only show me a draft after you’ve worked carefully on it.

Step #7 Edit, proof.

• There is no way I can evaluate the quality of your thinking apart from the quality of your writing. So reread and edit several times.
• Write in simple, clear prose. Use of personal pronouns is fine. Clarity is crucial in philosophy. Avoid pomposity!
• Proof, spell check, print in readable font.

Step #8 Turn in November 19. No late papers.