The title of your philosophy term paper is: In your opinion, can we make ever make value judgements that are objectively true? Length: 4000 words. On the 13th and 15th June, you will each have the chance to make a brief presentation outlining your thoughts on the matter up until that point in the semester. You will be graded not so much for your own presentations, as for your comments on the presentations of your class-mates (this will be the biggest factor in setting the grade for discussion. Helpful comments help improve a paper). On the 20th June, you will submit a rough draft. If you do not submit a rough draft by that date, you will lose 5% of your final grade. In your rough draft, please include thanks for the most helpful comments you received during the discussion. I will return these drafts with comments and suggestions on the 22nd June, including my estimate of whether the rough draft would receive a passing grade (A-C) or a failing grade (D-F). This is so that you can then make a decision about whether to continue with the class by the 24th June, which is the last day to drop without special permission. Please note that since this does not give me much time to read the rough drafts. I will make sure you receive some information about points that could be improved, but do not assume that because I make no comment about a particular part of the paper, it therefore needs no improvement, my comments are just the starting point for further work. My goal in commenting on the rough drafts is to point out the priorities – I cannot necessarily tell you all of the problems you need to fix, but I will give you an idea of the biggest problems. Expression: marked out of 10. A good paper must be clearly expressed. The English must be flawless, and you should not try to impress me by using words that you do not fully understand. The tone should be that of a formal, academic piece of writing. Organization: marked out of 10. Do not waste a single word with irrelevant personal anecdotes, irrelevant information about the lives of great philosophers, jokes, or pretentious opening statements like “Since the start of time…” The paper should be well structured, like a well-written episode of a television series – when I get to the end, it must be clear that every single paragraph was essential, and that I was being directed all along to what appears to be an inevitable outcome. (When you are revising your first draft, think very carefully about how the material might be re-arranged). Understanding: marked out of 10. You will need to give some examples of judgements that we would clearly consider to be objective, for example that judgement that the Earth moves around the Sun, and judgements that we clearly consider to be value judgements, for example the judgement that Hitler was evil. (But please, try to think of your own examples). Then you will need to consider carefully what reasons there are for supposing that we cannot arrive at objective opinions on matters of value. Are these obstacles that could be overcome with hard work, or insuperable barriers? Think very carefully about how someone might respond to your arguments, bearing in mind what other philosophers have said about such matters. Feel free to make use of points that were discussed in class as well, but always look for added value – add something of your own to the discussion. If your friend said something useful in class, you can mention it, but try to take the debate a step further. If you quote a well-known philosopher, explain whether you agree or disagree, and why. You must show that you have made an attempt to engage with people whose opinions you disagree with. It is important that you demonstrate an appreciation that, whatever you say on this topic, you are disagreeing with some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived. Argumentation: marked out of 10. The goal is to present your thinking on the matter. So, the whole paper must be defending your point of view – do not wait until the final paragraph to mention which side you happen to agree with, state and defend your position from the start. But remember, you are presenting not just your opinion on the matter, but your thinking – there must be some attempt at argument. Throughout the class, I will be trying to teach you techniques of argument as we evaluate the work of other philosophers. The most important feature of a good argument is that you need to find a way to use points of consensus to settle points of controversy. For example, which is the greatest soccer club in English history, Liverpool or Manchester United. That is a point of controversy. Manchester United have won the English top-flight championship (formerly known as Division One, now known as the Premiership) more than any other club. That is a point of consensus that nobody can deny, and evidence in favor of their being the best. But then Liverpool have won the top European trophy (formerly the European Cup, now the Champions’ League) more than any other club. That too is a point of consensus, and evidence in favor of Liverpool. So now we need to know which trophy matters more – a controversial question. Liverpool have won five European cups and eighteen English league titles, United have won twenty English titles and three European cups – point of consensus. Those figures suggest that the European trophy is harder to win, and therefore is a better indication of greatness. If the European Cup is the greater trophy, then we have evidence that Liverpool is the greatest club. Notice how finding the right questions at each stage leads us step by step to an answer to the original question – we use facts about which there is a consensus to get an answer to a controversial question. (I hate admitting that Liverpool have been more successful, but good arguments force people to admit that something is true even if it is not what we want to believe).
