Argumentative essay

Pick any reading or part of the class and to offer your own
original argument for a conclusion relating to some part of that reading or that part of the class. (The
only thing you are not allowed to write about are the topics from the other two papers: (1) the topic of
person essentialism and (2) the topic of the experience condition on harm and whether one can be
harmed after one’s death.)
Your argument can have the conclusion that someone else’s view or argument is wrong or does
not work (this would be an argument for a negative conclusion); or your argument can have a
positive conclusion about some topic (e.g. that it would in fact be good to be immortal, under
some specified conditions). In either case, you need to offer an argument, not just a statement or
assertion of your opinion about the matter.
This gives you quite a bit more room to maneuver, and you can, in some sense, write about whatever
you want that was covered in the class. But you still need to do it as a philosopher would. Here is a
suggestion for how to get started:
First, think of some part of the class, some claim, some argument, some conclusion, that you
found yourself disagreeing with, perhaps strongly. Were there any readings or discussions that
left you frustrated or, even better, angry? Work with that. You might be on to something
important. If nothing comes to mind, pick some of the readings that you found most interesting,
or go over your notes from the class, or both. Does anything jump out as being not right, or not
quite right? Start just by going through the syllabus and your notes if nothing comes to mind.
Second, make some notes about what made you angry or frustrated; what you disagree with; what
you think the philosopher or paper is getting wrong; examples that seem to go against what was
being claimed; examples that show that something important is being ignored; places where the
argument seems to skip over something important; places where the argument seems to blur
together two different things.
Third, try to think about the logical structure of your complaint or concern or idea. Is it that there
is a theory or view that has some bad implications? You might be looking at a modus tollens
argument. Perhaps you need to reconstruct the argument you disagree with and show how there is
an equivocation between two important terms: maybe there is no single understanding of “P” in
your opponent’s argument that makes both the first premise and the second premise of their
argument true. Maybe there’s something that has been left out of the discussion, so that you want
to advocate for a new view, Q, and to get there by way of a modus ponens argument (where your
“P” would be the thing you think is being left out).