Babienko English
Philosophy Paper
For this paper I would like you to examine the relationship between fate and free will and
how this relationship impacts the question of moral responsibility.
While I do want to know what you think, this is not simply an opinion paper. Rather, I want you
to enter into a scholarly conversation with the writers and texts we have been studying in this
unit – Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex, Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism” (which is
what Banach is summarizing in his paper), and Albert Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus”.
What is meant by a “scholarly conversation”? The following analogy illustrates what this means:
Imagine you have just arrived at a party. There are already a number of guests at the party intelligent, scholarly types - and when you enter the room they are engaged in a lively discussion
about, say, the relationship between fate and free will and how this relationship might impact
moral responsibility. What do you do? Well, if you are a good conversationalist, you listen, first
of all. You listen to what one guest has to say about the topic; you listen to how another responds
to the first person’s comments; you listen as yet another person chimes in. Eventually, once you
have listened to the conversation for a while and understand what is being discussed, you might
say something, offering comments that build off of what has been said. Your views might agree
with or they might challenge those of the other guests who have been speaking, but regardless of
whether you agree or disagree with what has been said, you’d certainly acknowledge what the
others have been saying as you offer your own opinion. In other words, you wouldn’t act as if
you were giving a speech with no question-and-answer session; rather, you would converse with
others. Of course you are trying to make your views on the topic clear to others, but you must
first acknowledge/incorporate what others have said.
This is essentially what your paper is: a scholarly conversation between Sophocles, Sartre,
Camus and you on the topic of fate, free will, and moral responsibility. As such, you will need to
demonstrate in your paper a thorough understanding of each author’s position regarding
the relationship between fate and free will and how each author addresses the question of
moral responsibility. Once you have presented these authors’ positions – or perhaps in the
process of doing so - you will be able to present your own position on these questions.
While this is somewhat different from previous papers you have written for this course, your
paper will still need to include the basic elements of good analytical writing, such as:










an introduction that presents the topic of the paper, introduces readers to the context of
the discussion, and includes a sufficiently complex CLAIM (aka thesis)
topic sentences that are connected to the main claim
logical organization of paragraphs/arguments
effective transitions between paragraphs and between sentences
sufficient textual evidence and analysis of the evidence in support of your claims
correct introduction and integration of all quotations
proofreading
MLA formatting
title page (with original, scholarly title)
Works Cited page
Over >
Babienko English
Philosophy Paper
What else am I looking for?
 Complex, nuanced, critical thinking - Refer to your notes from our seminars (assuming
you took notes). Listen to the podcasts of seminars if these discussions are no longer
fresh in your mind. Look through discussion board posts for especially
interesting/insightful comments. While I certainly do not want you to plagiarize someone
else’s ideas, these resources should help you gain a better understanding of what is really
at stake in these texts and what they might mean on a “deeper” level. Do not settle for
simplistic answers to complex questions – for example, do not settle for the overly
simplistic interpretation that Sophocles is telling us to quit seeking knowledge (ugh,
audible groan) or that Camus is simply saying “live for today because you never know
how long you have” (icky cliché that ignores the complexities of his argument). Finally,
go back and review the texts to see how they relate to one another – you will have to do
this anyway in order to come up with textual support, but I recommend you do this in
addition to reviewing podcasts, class notes and DB posts.
 Scholarly writing – consider your audience, the rhetorical situation, and the conventions
of the discipline. This is not a personal response paper nor is it a casual journal entry.
 Cite ALL sources – plagiarism, even inadvertent, is unacceptable. If you use Wikipedia,
for example, acknowledge that you have done so. Citing your sources shows you have
consulted some, that you have engaged in conversation. See me if you are unsure about
the validity of a source.
The following excerpt from the “Free Will” article from Wikipedia may help stimulate your
thinking (go to the article online and follow the links for definitions of unfamiliar terms):
Free will
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)
“Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over
their actions, decisions, or choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the
relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally
deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are
determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can
coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard
determinists' are incompatibilists who argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this
makes free will impossible.”
“The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the
religious realm, free will implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over
individual will and choices. In ethics, it implies that individuals can be held morally accountable
for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of
philosophical thought.”
Please read the following article for additional instructions and grading criteria:
Over >
Babienko English
Philosophy Paper
HOW TO WRITE A PHILOSOPHY PAPER
(Adapted from: http://web.utk.edu/~nolt/courses/HOWTOWRT.html)
PURPOSE OF THE PAPER The purpose of a philosophy paper is to get you to do some
philosophy—that is, to examine, clarify, and articulate your reasons for or against one or more
philosophical ideas. In a philosophy paper, you might:



Argue for a specific point of view on a philosophical issue (this could be a view someone else has
expressed or a view of your own), or
Explain and argue against a view expressed by another person, or
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of two or more views.
For this assignment, you will be using a combination of these strategies. Since philosophical issues are
by nature unsettled, there is no "right" viewpoint that I am looking for in your paper. What I want to see
instead is evidence of understanding and involvement with the course material and of the ability to
explain and justify your thoughts about it.
CRITERIA FOR GRADING I use five criteria in grading a philosophy paper. They are, in order of
importance: (1) comprehension, (2) quality of reasoning, (3) clarity, (4) originality, and (5) careful use of
language. When I grade your paper, I will provide a brief summary of how well you did on each of these
criteria.
The first criterion, comprehension, concerns how well you understand and utilize material presented in
class or in the texts. Your paper should respond to class material, either building upon it or criticizing it.
If you present an idea to which objections have been raised in the course, discuss these objections. If we
have mentioned evidence that supports an idea you present in your paper, discuss and evaluate this
evidence. Let me know that you understand what we've been doing in class. (If you don't understand
what we've been doing in class, you should be meeting with me!)
By quality of reasoning I mean how well you use examples and arguments. A philosophy paper should
not be just a series of statements of what you believe. Every statement of opinion should be accompanied
by an explanation or reason. NEVER NEVER NEVER just say "I believe X" and leave it at that. Say
what you believe, but give your reasons. Articulating the reasons underlying your beliefs is difficult,
challenging, sometimes even threatening, but it is the whole point of the assignment. You might find
your view changing as your reasoning congeals. If so, revise your paper accordingly. You might also
find that you don't know what to think about an issue, that several conflicting viewpoints all seem right.
That's fine. Just explain and evaluate the points of view that appeal to you and discuss the sources of your
indecision. You can take a middle position if that's your honest belief; you needn't fake a solid opinion on
one side or another.
Good philosophical reasoning also involves responding to objections. To do this,
take the point of view of someone who would be skeptical of your argument—perhaps a philosopher
whose work we've read. Explain how that person would respond to what you are saying and reply to that
response. If your opponent has a good reply to your reply to her reply, explain it and then reply to her
reply to your reply to her reply…. This process (dialectic) can be often be carried on through many
stages. It is perhaps the fundamental philosophical method. If you are careful to keep it from going
around in circles, it can drive your understanding deeper with each exchange of ideas.
The third criterion I use for grading is clarity. Avoid vague generalities; or, if you can't avoid them,
clarify them with vivid examples. Don't use a big word when a little word will do, but also use
appropriate scholarly terminology intelligently. Organize; and, as your ideas develop, reorganize. Each
Over >
Babienko English
Philosophy Paper
paragraph should make a single point, and the paragraphs should be arranged in a logical order, according
to some overall plan. What you are saying and why you are saying it should be clear to your reader at
every point in the paper. If it isn't, rewrite until it is.
Originality is also important. That doesn't mean you have to come up with ideas no one has thought
about before (which is practically impossible), but rather that you should work through the course
material and respond to it in your own way. Say what you think, not what you think I think you should
think. I appreciate honest papers.
Language use covers things like spelling, punctuation, grammar, word usage, style, etc. I base part of the
grade on these mundane but important matters.
Here are some additional points:
DON'T PLAGIARIZE All quotations, paraphrases or ideas that are not your own should be
properly documented. All quotations must be placed in quotation marks or clearly indented and set off
from the rest of the text. Not to cite sources constitutes plagiarism, which is a serious violation of
academic honesty rules. This includes internet sources, which must be cited by title and URL address.
Any act of plagiarism will result in a score of zero on the assignment and (depending on the severity of
the infraction) possible failure in the course. Use MLA citation guidelines
DON'T USE ITEMS OF FAITH AS PREMISES. Philosophy is a discipline of reason, not of faith.
Moreover, in a diverse democratic society, it is a mistake to presume consensus on religious issues. So
don’t base arguments on the Bible, the Torah, the Koran or any other religious text (since the
authoritativeness of all religious texts is widely disputed)—or on your personal faith, which many others
do not share. It's fine to argue for a religious conclusion; but don't assume items of faith as premises.
Don't, for example, argue that it is wrong to kill because the sixth Commandment says so. Use premises
that would be acceptable to a diverse group of educated readers (such as your classmates), not just to
people of a particular faith.
SUPPORT YOUR IDEAS WITH REASONS, NOT FEELINGS. Appeal to reasons that you can
communicate to others—not feelings, which may be peculiar to you alone.
DISCUSS YOUR WORK WITH ME AND WITH OTHERS. Discussion is often particularly useful if
you are having trouble getting started, but it can help at any stage of the writing process. It is good (and
occasionally even enjoyable!) to make an appointment to talk with me. I will be happy to provide
comments and suggestions on notes, outlines, rough drafts, etc., at any time during the writing process.
READ YOUR PAPER ALOUD BEFORE YOU TURN IT IN. This is an excellent way of avoiding
errors in wording and of making sure that you are really saying what you mean. If you read something
you wouldn’t say in conversation, then probably you should change it.
DO IT WELL! Above all, strive to feel good about what you are doing. Good philosophical writing
requires craft and care. Rework your paper until it feels right and you know you have done something
worthwhile.
Over >