Position Paper Information

Description of Position Paper

Your position paper can be a reasoned defense or a critique of an ethical thesis. It should not be done as a research paper or a collection and arrangement of diverse sources. Instead, your paper should exhibit two central characteristics:

• an intensive analysis of a ethical thesis, and
• your criticism of the thesis and your supporting arguments.

The expression of your opinion or feelings, although important in its own right, must be supported by rational argument or justification (with supporting details) acceptable to a reasonable person. Your position paper should consist of the following parts:

1. An Introduction where you state the purpose of the paper and what you intend to show. This might include summarizing the main parts of your paper.

2. An Explication where you explain the basis for the philosophical view you are examining. Be sure to present this argument or thesis as persuasively as possible.

3. The Counter-Argument where you present objections to the thesis and give your supporting reasons for those objections.

4. The Resolution of the Problem where you either support the original view by overcoming the counter arguments or you reject the original view by showing the objections constitute unanswerable difficulties. (If you cannot take either of these two positions, then explain carefully why the problem cannot be solved in its present form. On many philosophical issues this is the best course to take. In such a case, try to suggest what further work needs to be done.)

5. A Conclusion where you restate the purpose of the paper and summarize the main parts. Finally, restate your position.

Your completed position paper should have the following features:

• an Abstract consisting of a summary of the essential features of your paper
• word-processed and proofread
• a minimum of one source
• footnotes and bibliography in a proper form; all ideas and exact quotations properly documented
• your reasoning and thought explicitly stated

Checklist for Writing

Richard T. De George in his The Philosopher's Guide to Sources, Research Tools, Professional Life, and Related Fields, (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1980) has given many useful suggestions for the construction of a philosophy paper from which the following checklist is adapted.

Step 1: Reading.

Preview several philosophy papers in the text and note the important topics. Next, ask yourself what you already know about the subject. Finally, read the papers with your own ideas in mind. Question what you are reading, and mark passages which are either unclear or important. In this manner, your reading is active: your ideas will either be supported or opposed by the writers of the papers. Consequently, issues will suggest themselves to you.

Step 2: Finding Topics.

Look for the following situations which arise from your reading:

Situation	Possible Paper
1. There are conflicts of assumptions, theories, or approaches to a subject.	You explain the conflict and then show which solution is adequate.
2. The author and some other writer with whom you are personally acquainted give different conclusions on the same subject.	You contrast them and show which one has a stronger position.
3. Two different disciplines approach the same topic using different methods.	You explain the different methods and describe the respective insights into the topics according to the method used.
4. The language used to explain something is uncertain, and the explanations are no more than rationalizations.	You analyze the language and explanations. Then, you finish the reasoning.
5. Conclusions are offered, but no supporting arguments are given.	If you agree, give detailed supporting reasons; if you disagree, give your reasoning.
6. Different parts of the text seem contradictory or in opposition.	You can reconcile the difference or explain the intellectual development of the text or show that the opposition cannot be reconciled.
7. New facts, discoveries, or ideas demand that the text be modified or supplemented.	You explain the new developments and show how the text can be modified.
8. You are sure that the author is mistaken or the author upsets you.	Reconstruct your own point of view and evaluate it with respect to the author's point of view.

Step 3: Selecting a Topic.

Once you have a list of possible topics, evaluate each topic according to several conditions:

1. Is the topic practical?

   Do I have the background and skills necessary to do this topic?

   Do I have enough time to do the topic justice?

   Is the topic clear in my own mind?

   Is material readily available for researching the topic?

2. What will I learn from doing this topic?

   What skills?

   What type of information?

   Is this the best topic to do from the point of view of my educational needs?

3. How will my instructor consider the topic?

   Does the instructor have a bias or preference that would best be avoided? Is the topic in the instructor's field of expertise?

   Is the topic one where the instructor can be of help to me?

   Is the topic one which will be most likely to produce the best grade or the best education for me?

Step 4: First Ideas.

Construct on separate pages short notes in answer to the following questions. Your paper will not include all of the notes formed from this outline. As you answer these questions, write as if you are writing a letter to a friend. Suspend your critical faculties.

1. What is the problem?

   What makes the problem important?

   What is the history of the problem in terms of how it has been formulated?

   What is the history of the problem in terms of the kinds of persons who have been interested in it?

2. What solutions are there to the problem?

   What are the various proposals?

   What argument(s) bring a particular solution?

   For each conclusion, what facts or assumptions are involved in the premisses?

   What solution is presently considered the most authoritative?

   If a solution has been disregarded, why has it been disregarded?

   When an author has provided a solution, does she argue against some other point of view?

   If she does, what are the objections? Does she consider objections to her own proposals?

3. What is your evaluation of the solutions to the problem?

   What are the advantages and disadvantages to the proposed solutions? Are some proposals not really solutions? Why not?

   What is the value of a solution in advancing your own knowledge? Does the solution suggest a change of perspective? Does it suggest a way of solving other problems?

   Are there various formulations of the same solution? If so, is one formulation superior to the rest? Why?

   Is the solution developed in a logical and sound manner? Is it coherent? Are the facts true? Are the assumptions acceptable? Are the objections answerable?

Step 5: Working Plan.

On the basis of your first ideas, compose a general outline which gives:

The central problem of your paper.

The point of view from which the topic is developed.

How the paper proceeds: its division into subtopics and an orderly development.

The Conclusions reached in your paper.

Step 6: Rough Draft.

Taking the topics in your outline and the list of first ideas, write the whole paper without searching for the exact words or phrases. Your goal is to finish-no matter how bad (or good) you think the paper is up to this point.

Step 7: Writing.

Taking one topic of your paper at a time, focus your whole attention and effort on one or two specific ideas. Write out the ideas, then rewrite. When you find that your rewriting is no better than the original expression, then you are ready to move to a new topic. When this stage of the paper is completed, wait at least a day before you go back to read critically what you have written.

Step 8: Outside Comments.

Get at least one friend to read your paper and point out ideas or arguments which are unclear. If a point is unclear to a friend, it could be unclear to your instructor. Clarify any of those points in your paper. If your friend understands what you have written but disagrees with cogent reasons, you may want to include more in your paper.

Step 9. Proofreading.

Proofread your paper word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence. Some people find it helpful to proofread a paper backward, sentence by sentence. All grammar, punctuation, and spelling of which you are not absolutely certain should be verified. Although this work is painstaking, it pays dividends. Often the omission of this step makes the difference between an A and a B. (Make a list of errors you habitually make and keep the list in your dictionary for handy reference, thus saving time in proofreading for future papers.)

Step 10: Completion.

Type or word-process your paper. Again proofread carefully and correct any typing errors.

Paper Evaluation Sheet

Name		Grade
Title

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Presenting the Subject

1. Appropriateness of title
2. Precision of objective
3. Over-all grasp of problems
4. Statement of findings
5. Logical summation
6. Organization of the whole

Research Material

7. Quantity
8. Quality-Primary
9. Quality-Secondary

Adaptation

10. By reference
11. By quotation
12. By paraphrase

Evaluation of Data

13. Clarity of interpretation
14. Individuality
15. Critical analysis

Paragraphs

16. Unity
17. Logical development
18. Transitions

Sentences

19. Structure
20. Punctuation

Words

21. Diction (word choice)
22. Spelling

Form

23. Footnotes
24. Bibliography
25. Appearance of paper