Task:

In this paper, I would like you to:

• Describe “The Moral Problem” that Michael Smith lays out in chapter 1 of his 1994 book The Moral Problem. (The problem is very explicitly presented on p12 of this chapter; I want you to put this problem into your own words.)
• Drawing on the readings for the course, present two different ways of trying to resolve the Moral Problem. (For example, you might discuss those who reject proposition (1) of the Moral Problem, and those who reject proposition (2).)
• Evaluate which strategy for resolving the Moral Problem is superior. Try to provide reasons for your evaluation. 

Specs:

• Your paper should be 900-1100 words (include a word count with your submission).
• You do not need to include a bibliography; simply reference page numbers where appropriate. 
• Your paper will be marked according to this rubric. 
• Before beginning: (1) read and digest the grader’s comments on your first paper; (2) re-read Jim Pryor’s Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper.

Tips for Papers (Reformulated)

1. Read carefully many times, especially the place where the arguments takes place.

1. Read between the lines using class and tutorial notes.

1. Try reconstructing the arg. in writing step-by-step.

2. Double-check if the steps lead naturally to the next.

3. Double-check if some step is missing in the logic.

4. Double-check if you duplicate steps or go backwards.

5. Double-check if you put in steps that aren’t needed.

2. Talk to Prof. and TA, if there is a particular part that is confusing or unclear.

2. Get through each crucial step needed in the arg.

3. Get through the arg. in the shortest route possible.

4. Explain each crucial step in a way that is accessible to someone who is not in philosophy.

1. Remember you are trying to show that you grasp each crucial step in the arg., and also
how the steps relate dialectically with the other steps and other views in the debate.

2. Use the examples to illustrate.

1. Set up an example in a neutral way.

2. Illustrate how the example is used to or may support some part of the overall arg.

3. Reread your writing multiple times while writing it.

1. Double-check that there are not ambiguities.

1. Try to reread your work in the most uncharitable way

2. See if there are different ways to read your sentences/paragraphs.

3. See if there are different conclusions given different readings of premises.

5. Critical engagement

1. Don’t repeat what is said.

2. Think of points that have not been considered that have a bearing on points in the arg.

1. If you agree with arg. A that B, think of reasons why arg. A not valid or sound, and
then give reasons why those reasons aren’t compelling, or

2. think of a case that seems to support the claim that B is not true, and show why that
case in fact is not conclusive evidence for the claim that B is not true.

Paper 2: Resolving Smith’s Moral Problem

3 independently plausible claims are in at least apparent tension (incompatible) with each other.

You will need to explain first what that tension is between (MP 1), (MP 2), and (MP 3).

What is the tension?

Here’s a hint:1+2 = > X, X + 3 => ?

You will need to explain second what are two ways to resolve the tension.

Options

a. show how the 3 claims are in fact compatible

b. show how 1 of the 3 claims is in fact implausible

i. show that 1 is false

ii. show that 2 is false

iii. show that 3 is false

You will need to argue why one way is superior to the other way.

Breakout Exercise 1 (MP 1: Moral Objectivity)

Think of reasons why (MP 1) is false.

And who thinks (MP 1) is false?

Breakout Exercise 2 (MP 2: Moral Internalism)

Think of reasons why (MP 2) is false.

And who thinks (MP 2) is false?

Breakout Exercise 3 (MP 3: Humean Motivation)

Think of reasons why (MP 3) is false.

And who thinks (MP 3) is false?

Guidelines for Writing Exercises

Nate Charlow

January

1

9, 2021

Grading. 100 points are possible for each writing exercise. Here is how those points are assigned.

• Mastery of the text/issue (40). Excellent writing demonstrates a solid and sophisticated
understanding of the relevant philosophical text/issue, the evidence of careful reading and
study.

• Clarity, rigor, and care of presentation (40). Excellent writing clearly articulates
central philosophical claims (and clearly explains how the arguments for these claims work);
extraneous detail is omitted; a simple and compelling presentation of a philosophical point-
of-view is achieved.

• Writing and organization (20 points). Excellent writing uses transparent and easy-to-
read prose; it is concise, precise, and pleasant/straightfoward to read.

Grading Table

Mastery of the text (40 possible) 40 36 32 28 24 20 16

Clarity, rigor, compellingness (40 possible) 40 36 32 28 24 20 16

Writing and organization (20 possible) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8

More information. Here is a useful general resource on writing philosophy papers, written by
Jim Pryor. Note that some of Pryor’s advice is only appropriate for longer-form philosophical
writing. But a good deal of this advice—for example: use simple prose, make the structure of
your writing obvious, explains key claims and terms concisely but also fully—is useful for even
short-form philosophical writing (like the kind you’ll be doing in the Writing Exercises).

1

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html