Writing the Term Paper PHIL1120 Environmental Ethics

Instructor Bearden Fall 2011

Contents: 1. How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper? (1)

2. What is a thesis statement? (2) 3. Using outside sources (4) 4. Possible paper topics (6)

How do I select a topic for a philosophy paper? All students are expected to write one term paper on a relevant topic in the course that considers a philosophical position or contemporary environmental issue in detail. Papers should be 5-6 pages in length, double-spaced, in font size 12 and free from grammatical and other errors. Papers should show creativity and imagination but should also be written with clarity and precision. Students will first submit a thesis statement indicating their topic, proposed argument, and support from philosophical sources. The thesis is worth 5% of the final grade and is graded on a pass/fail basis. Students will receive comments and guidance from the instructor regarding their thesis before the paper’s due date. Consult the Course Schedule for all due dates. Students are warmly encouraged to discuss the paper topic with the instructor. Please see the instructor if you have further questions or need help during any phase of the writing process. The first step in the writing process is picking a topic that interests you. What issues were you hoping to tackle in this course? What ideas have most impacted the way you think? What would you like to know more about? Narrowing the field to a few topics is a good start. From there, consider what readings our book offers on the subject. You are free to write about any environmental issue, as long as it is considered from a moral point of view. That said, you might also look into public policy, environmental science, economics or any other related field. Following your interest is one way to encourage creativity in your papers. Starting with a question regarding your topic is a good second step. What would you like to investigate about a particular topic? Consider the scope of your paper and whether or not there will be conclusive and clear evidence for you to research. Solid papers will argue for a clear point and will incorporate relevant evidence when applicable. As you settle on your topic, consider what premises you will need to consider in order to reach a conclusion on your topic. Think of these premises as the primary support for what your paper aims to prove. These three premises should help frame your paper, setting the scope of your investigation. Next, consider how each of these premises logically fit together to help you address your topic of choice. Try to make these premises fit as precisely as possible. The more you are able to simplify these premises into a logical argument, the more precise your paper will be. Obviously, you’ll return to these as you pursue this topic through research. But you are now on your way to formulating a thesis. For a more detailed discussion of the thesis statement, keep reading…

Bearden 1

What is a thesis statement? In the assigned term papers you are free to present arguments for your views, but you may also consider offering arguments for positions you personally do not agree with. Part of philosophizing is learning how to present and analyze arguments effectively; separating yourself from the argument is often a good method of learning how to philosophize. (For instance, maybe you think the strong animal rights position is too strong, but you could try to argue in its favor.) In this sense, argument means: “to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion,” (Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments, xi). This is how argumentation differs from opinion. Opinions often lack a ready set of reasons or evidence that can be offered in support. The conclusion is carefully reached, whereas an opinion is merely asserted without supporting reasons or evidence. Since you are writing an argumentative paper, the thesis is the most important aspect of a paper. Please note again that a thesis statement (rough draft) is due before the paper due date. During the writing process, the thesis should be the first and last thing you write. First, decide what you will argue based on the reading and research you have done. Then after you have written the body of the paper using that research, return to the thesis. Check to make sure that what you have actually written about is what you say you are writing about in your thesis. In other words, your thesis should be a summary of everything you have written. If you wrote about something or failed to write about something that your first drafted thesis includes, you should revise the thesis accordingly. Likewise, if you planned to discuss a point, but omit it from the final draft, revise your thesis. Restating your thesis (using new phrasing) also will provide the conclusion to your paper. Another way to think about a thesis statement is to consider what question you are asking in your paper. Your thesis statement can include a question or questions, but a question alone (even a set of questions) is not sufficient enough for a thesis. Questions can be provocative and interesting, but they lack substance. Questions alone do not help the reader determine how you will answer the question(s). Thus a proper thesis should be your answer to that question. What are you trying to prove or establish through argument based on an initial question? The more precise your initial question means you will be able to provide a more detailed and precise thesis. Consider a full answer to your question might consist in three or four sentences, rather than one sentence alone. When I read your papers, I should know exactly what the paper is going to be about. Though it may take away the surprise, a well crafted philosophical essay gives away the central argument and conclusion right up front. Every main idea or argument contained in the paper should be mentioned and given a brief introduction in the thesis statement. The thesis is a short version of your argument. See the example below:

Example of a Strong Thesis: Anthropocentrism is the view that only human animals have moral value. However, recent moral philosophers have attacked the underlying assumption that animals are always inferior to humans. The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer claims that because the ability to feel pain and pleasure is morally relevant, we should extend moral consideration to nonhuman animals who share this capacity. Human activities

Bearden 2

such as consumption of animal meat and other products, scientific testing, and hunting or trapping inflict pain on animals and hence, Singer claims these practices are morally wrong and ought to be abandoned. I will agree with Singer that pain is morally relevant, however, it does not always follow that not killing an animal produces the least amount of pain. Also, if animal agriculture and scientific testing could undergo reforms to reduce inflicted suffering, it might be justified to continue using animals in this way. Killing or using an animal does not automatically imply that the animal is inferior, and though while anthropocentrism may be morally groundless, Singer offers no compelling reason to fully abolish using animals to human ends, even where there is a conflict of equal consideration of interests.

Following this thesis statement the body of the paper will progress as follows. 1. Develop Singer’s critique of anthropocentrism. 2. Explain how the utilitarian theory helps provide the basis of moral consideration

(considering who/what feels pain and pleasure; the right actions tend to maximizes pleasure or happiness, and wrong actions do the reverse, considering everyone).

3. Develop Singer’s case for the Strong Animal Rights position. 4. Your position: offer a critique of the strong animal rights position (preferably

appealing to some relevant research that can strengthen your case). Make sure you reach a judgment. You might decide to argue in favor of Singer’s position, but it’s a good idea to consider at least one other perspective or one serious objection to the view. This makes your conclusion stronger!

Example of a Weak Thesis: In the history of philosophy, one thing that is determined is that philosophers always disagree and contradict each other. Is global warming real? Why does this even matter? Isn’t it obvious that people matter more than animals or natural objects? I feel that there is nothing wrong with the environment, it’s all made up by Hollywood and the media.

This thesis is weak because: 1. It broadly considers the disagreements among unnamed philosophers with no

central relevance to any paper topic. Watch out for hasty generalizations that don’t offer support of your argument directly. Also be careful not to use sweeping historical generalizations either.

2. It raises questions that it fails to answer. Remember that statement form is the proper format for a strong thesis, not questions. If you raise questions, then consider how your paper will answer them definitively. If you are unable to address the questions (because they are too broad or rhetorical) then consider other questions.

3. It doesn’t address a clear and relevant topic. It’s unclear if the paper will address global warming or animal rights, the human caused environmental crisis, the difference between what is factual and what is perception, or all of the above.

Bearden 3

4. Lastly, while it does almost take a position (generally something to aim for), it is not supported as a reasonable conclusion from the thesis. In fact it’s not clear what the central position is, so it’s unclear how this position will be reached with a well- researched argument. Consider that this position also radically differs from the view contemporary science favors (that some human actions are majorly destructive to the environment--can recent catastrophes such as the Gulf oil spill or nuclear power plant meltdowns be totally ignored?). Consider reasons relevant from the assigned reading and further research. You are encouraged to form your own views and articulate your opinion, just make sure that you find support for it. Once you offer support of your position, it ceases to be mere opinion only.

Using Outside Sources: This term paper requires consulting and incorporating scholarly sources, both primary and secondary. A primary source is a text from the philosopher you are writing about in their own words (our text is a primary source reader, so any of the articles count as primary sources). A secondary source is someone else writing about the ideas/concepts of your philosopher (the editorial introductions by Pojman are secondary sources). If you have any question about acceptable sources, please see the instructor. The syllabus mentions a few helpful internet resources as well that might provide a good starting point, including a link to finding philosophy materials through the library. The library offers helpful research searches by field, this is called the RSQ (here is the link: http://research.anokaramsey.edu/). Please note that your sources should be scholarly (sorry Wikipedia fans, but it’s not scholarly). In other words, they are written by professionals working in the field. Exceptional essays will include a minimum of three scholarly sources and will probably attempt to read at least one philosophical primary source. Mediocre essays will use limited research. Citing sources is an important aspect of writing a paper. The general rule is to cite every idea or thought that is not your own. Sometimes you will quote a source, other times you will paraphrase or summarize a source, in all cases, cite a source after you have finished with the thought. I should be able to tell when, where, and how you used sources from references in the body of the paper and from your bibliography page. If you fail to cite, you have plagiarized!

Citing sources in the text:  Include relevant information, which is at a minimum the author and page

number.  If you use more than one source from the same author, make sure to

distinguish between them by including the title.  In some styles (such as Chicago style), the first time a source is cited, the

whole bibliographic information should be used.  Other styles (like Harvard style) also cite the date of publication along with

author and page number.

Bearden 4

 Most of all, be consistent (pick your preferred style and stick to it!). I do not require a specific citation manual style, so follow the style you know best. But be consistent, and include all relevant information.

Bibliography:  Include all sources used in the paper.  If you cite a source on the bibliography page, it should be referenced at some

point in the paper.  If it is not referenced in the paper, it constitutes plagiarism.  If you cite a source in the text of your essay, make sure the same source

appears on the bibliography.  Every line after the first line should be indented one-half inch.  Always include ALL of the following information in a bibliographic

reference: • author(s), listed by full name, last name first • book, journal, or website title in italics or underlined • article title (if there is one), usually in quotations • edition or volume number (if applicable) • editor or translator’s names (if applicable) • publication city • publisher • publication year (or more precise date for internet sources) • page numbers (if a source has multiple articles with multiple authors,

e.g., citing an article from Pojman requires providing the specific page numbers of the article)

• website URL (if internet source) • date you were on the website to obtain the source (only for internet

sources)

Examples:

Brink, David. “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” in Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Published online October 9, 2007: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-

moral-political/. Accessed November 6, 2007.

Mill, John Stuart. “Nature” in Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application.

Sixth Edition. Louis P. Pojman and Paul Pojman, editors. Boston: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning, 2012. Pp. 122-129.

Bearden 5

Possible Paper Topics:

• Consider at least two arguments that address the topic of anthropocentrism (Kant, Wilson, Singer, Regan, Rolston, Naess, Devall and Sessions, Fox, Taylor, Leopold, etc.). What are the moral implications from anthropocentrism (what is implied practically from its truth or falsity)? On what grounds do such arguments appeal (to a special capacity, unique to humans, or to a commonality like the capacity for sentience, etc.)? Which argument do you find most compelling and why? What does this imply about human actions?

• From an ethical perspective, is it possible to justify or defend the inequality of humans and non-human animals (i.e., speciesism)? Is species egalitarianism the only way to promote respect of the environment and non-human animals? Can we get to species egalitarianism only through utilitarian theories (consider at least two of the philosophers: Singer, Regan and Warren)?

• Respond to Dale Jamieson’s argument against Zoos. What justifications for zoos does Jamieson consider? What are his responses to those arguments? Do his arguments have broader implications, such as whether or not it is justifiable to own pets? Are his arguments convincing? What other philosophers help advance this discussion (would Singer or Regan support Jamieson’s conclusion, why or why not; can you find any moral or other arguments that present a compelling case for the preservation of zoos)?

• Consider the diverse deontological arguments on animal rights (Kant, Wilson, and Regan). How do each of their arguments work, and what conclusions do they reach about animal rights? Evaluate their arguments. Which is the most compelling and why? Do you agree with the strongest argument, why or why not (this recognizes that the best argument may not be the one that represents your own position)?

• Does Nature itself have value? What type of value does nature have (instrumental, aesthetic, intrinsic)? Consider at least two arguments that address the value of nature (and there is a long list: Rolston, Naess, Devall and Sessions, Fox, Watson, Bookchin, Meadows, Russow, Schweitzer, Taylor, Leopold, and Callicott). A great approach for a paper like this is to take two philosophers whose views differ (that itself is not hard to accomplish), pit them against one another, and argue for who you think provides the most compelling argument. Give reasons in support of your answer. Consider the implications of such views (if nature is intrinsically valuable, do we have to take a “hands-off” approach?). Considering the implications can provide a good way to analyze whether the theories are useful.

• Consider any of the following topics from a moral standpoint. Use the readings in the text to get you started, but your research may pull you in other directions as well:

 Climate change (global warming or ozone depletion) and human impact on the environment

Bearden 6

 The rapidly growing human population and the scarcity of resources  Disposing of waste and pollution  Human consumption, food ethics and moral considerations of diet  Wilderness preservation  International public policy (research and evaluate a recent international

environmental convention)  Public policy regarding energy resources (research and evaluate alternate

energy solutions, from hybrid cars to solar panels and wind farms)  Capitalism and the Green Movement: is capitalism environmentally

unfriendly? The important point that makes such a topic morally relevant is that you will make claims about what we ought to do from a moral perspective. Given the environmental problem, how might we address it morally? Keep in mind that ethics strives for ideals, so you may argue for a high standard. For instance, even though not everyone may become a vegetarian, a strong argument for it will make even the self-satisfied but reflective meat- eater seriously consider their diet!

• Many of our articles are a brief section of a book by the author. Consider writing a book review of any of the authors included in our textbook who have piqued your interest (e.g., Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, or Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights). You might also consider a book review for authors who have been mentioned in the online learning (Rolston’s Genes Genesis and God, or de Waal’s Primates and Philosophers). Students are encouraged to run the book by the instructor first, in order to determine the philosophical relevancy. This topic does not necessarily excuse you from outside research; many of the prominent books have generated many other publications (articles, reviews, books, etc.) which may be relevant to a strong review essay.

Feel free to propose your own topic too! • If you do propose your own topic, make sure that it is relevant at some level to philosophy

or to environmental ethics. • Avoid focusing on the bibliography of a philosopher. Though many philosophers live/d

interesting lives, this assignment is NOT to profile the life of a philosopher in a biography. That said, the biography of the philosopher is probably not relevant at any point in the paper, even as an introduction to your paper or topic.

• You are also encouraged to consider a topic that is cross-disciplinary, meaning it might include scientific, public policy on a local or international level, economics or other related research. Just make sure that you don’t omit philosophical consideration. See the instructor with any questions.

Bearden 7