This page includes a philosophy paper checklist for undergraduate philosophy students (aimed at lower-division courses). It is divided into several sections. Each section contains tasks and tips to help you organize your thoughts, construct clear and logical arguments, and ensure your paper meets academic standards. Following this checklist, you can systematically address essential components.
*Note: This is a writing guide, not a rigid rule. The writing process should be adjusted to your needs (for example, some writers create an outline later in the process), and you can break “writing rules/guide/grammar” if you have a good reason.
Often, we don’t know what to write about. If you are stuck, start with free writing, where you jot down ideas and sentences without worrying about their structure or grammar. Ideas can come to you as you write. For example, I don’t outline before free writing because I cannot make an outline if I lack ideas or an aim (But for me, the outline is generally helpful.) Also, an outline is a sketch that you can modify anytime.
Finally, don’t forget that writing is an iterative process.
Table of Contents
Here’s how to use this checklist:
- Before proceeding to the checklist, there are a few important details about writing a philosophy paper. Read the “Details for following the checklist” section to learn about specific terms like ‘paper roadmap’ and “so-what factor.”
- Work Sequentially: Start with the Pre-Writing section and proceed through each subsequent section. This will help you build your paper step-by-step.
- Tick Off Tasks: As you complete each task, check it off. This will help you keep track of your progress and ensure you don’t miss any critical steps.
- Refer Back Often: Use this checklist throughout the writing process. Revisit sections as needed, especially when revising your paper.
- Use Provided Examples: Pay attention to examples in each section to better understand what is expected, and access the links on how to write a paper below.
Good luck with your writing. Remember that a well-written undergraduate philosophy paper does the following things:
- It presents the opposing view as accurately as possible.
- It argues/defends a small thesis coherently and clearly.
- Addresses objections to your thesis.
- It demonstrates your understanding of the philosophical concepts you have been reading in class.
Details for following the checklist
The “So-What” Factor in Philosophy Papers
The “so-what” factor is important in any philosophical discussion. It essentially answers the question: why does this argument or issue matter? In a philosophy paper, this means presenting a clear argument and demonstrating its significance. Why should your readers care about your thesis? How does it impact our understanding of the world, ethical practices, or theoretical frameworks? Sometimes, the importance is evident to the reader, but when it is not, it is good practice to explicitly say why your argument matters. There are often two scopes in the “so-what” factor. The first is the immediate impact of your thesis on any narrow issue you are dealing with. The second is the implication on the entire sub-field, field, or fundamental philosophical questions.
Suppose we have the following thesis:
“Consciousness has a role in epistemic justification in cases XYZ because…”
Narrow: Within the debate on internalism and externalism, the above thesis supports an internalist perspective by emphasizing the subjective nature of justification.
Broad: The implications of the above thesis extend beyond the specific debate on epistemic justification. Believing in the essential role of consciousness in epistemic justification influences philosophical and scientific investigation. We will more likely be drawn toward research about how subjective experience affects justification and other epistemic concepts like knowledge and understanding.
Critiquing Views in Undergraduate Philosophy
Undergraduate philosophy students in lower-division classes are typically tasked with critiquing others or their own views rather than supporting them. This often involves constructing a negative argument. Here’s how to do it:
- Accurately Present the Opponent’s View: Begin by clearly and fairly laying out the view you’re critiquing. Ensure that you represent the argument accurately to avoid straw man fallacies.
- Provide Objections: Next, raise specific objections to the opponent’s view. These objections should be well-reasoned and supported by logical arguments or evidence from the literature.
- Address Counterarguments: After presenting your objections, consider how the opponent might respond. Address these potential counterarguments to strengthen your critique and show the depth of your understanding.
If there are multiple arguments, you repeat the process. For instance, you have three potent arguments against Descartes’ ontological arguments.
The following is the outline of the body:
- Accurately Present the Opponent’s View
- Your argument 1
- Counterargument 1
- Your Rebuttal 1
- Your argument 2
- Counterargument 2
- Your Rebuttal 2
- Your argument 3
- Counterargument 3
- Your Rebuttal 3
By following this structured approach, you can effectively critique philosophical claims.
What is a paper roadmap?
A paper roadmap is a brief overview we provide at the beginning of an academic paper that outlines our arguments’ structure and main points. It guides readers through the paper’s logical progression to help them understand how the author will develop their thesis and supporting arguments. Clearly state your central thesis or argument to construct a practical paper roadmap. Follow this with a summary of the sections that you will discuss. Tell us about the main arguments and counterarguments you will address without going into detail. Indicate the order in which these points will be discussed to help readers follow the logical flow of your argument. Additionally, briefly explain the purpose of each section and how it contributes to supporting your thesis if you have space. Finally, it would also be helpful to explain what your claim or argument is not about to avoid confusion about your paper and thesis.
On Literature Review
A literature review in the introduction may be necessary for more advanced philosophy papers to situate your argument within the existing body of work. However, this is usually not required in introductory philosophy courses since you are asked to write about a specific paper. Instead, clearly state your thesis and deeply engage with the target paper to the best of your ability.
Paper Checklist
Pre-Writing
Structuring Your Paper
Writing
Revising
Sources and Evidence
Conventions
Avoiding Fallacy Checklist
Need some inspiration for paper topics? Here is a philosophical questions list.
Recommended: Read these sources for more detailed guidance on writing a strong philosophy paper for your classes.
Common Fallacies
Checking for fallacies in your work may not be a common practice, but it is a good exercise that helps you identify them in others’ work and improve your critical thinking skills. This will also help you avoid fatal flaws in your papers that result in a lower paper grade.
Many of these example sentences are easy to identify for learning purposes, but locating them within papers is not as straightforward. Fallacies can often be hidden within complex arguments, but practice will make you better at finding them.
Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, distorting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present one’s position as reasonable. Still, this kind of dishonesty serves no purpose in a rational debate.
Example: “Descartes says, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Clearly, he believes that if you don’t think, you must cease to exist on the spot.”
Ad Hominem Attack
An ad hominem attack targets the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. This tactic is common in debates but is considered a fallacy because it doesn’t address the argument’s merits.
Example: “Kant’s categorical imperative is flawed because he was a lifelong bachelor.”
False Dilemma
The false dilemma fallacy, the black-and-white fallacy, involves presenting two options as the only possibilities when others exist. This simplification can distort the truth by suggesting that a complex issue has only two possible outcomes.
Example: “Either we ban all cars to reduce pollution, or let the environment be destroyed.”
Begging the Question
Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise. It doesn’t provide actual evidence but relies on the true statement to prove itself.
Example: “Nietzsche’s philosophy must be correct because, well, it’s Nietzsche.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different senses in an argument, creating a misleading impression. It exploits the ambiguity of language to support an invalid conclusion.
Example: “A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.”
Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy suggests that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, which is usually negative. This fallacy avoids engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals.
Example: “If we let students redo their assignments, next they’ll want to redo their entire lives.”
Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is a fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to people’s respect for a famous person or institution.
Example: “We should follow this diet plan because my favorite actor swears by it, and they look great on screen.”
Non Sequitur
A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. It can be humorous or illogical and is used to demonstrate the absurdity of an argument.
Example: “She drives a BMW. She must be rich.”
Red Herring
A red herring fallacy is a distraction from the argument, typically with some sentiment that seems irrelevant but isn’t really on-topic. It often tries to confuse or distract by bringing up a side issue or something totally irrelevant.
Example: “Why worry about bees going extinct when we have homeless people in our city?”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
This fallacy, also known as “after this, therefore because of this,” assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B,’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’ It confuses correlation with causation.
Example: “I prayed for good weather, and the sun came out the next day. Clearly, my prayers work.”
Tu Quoque Fallacy
The tu quoque fallacy, or the appeal to hypocrisy, occurs when a person attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently with that position.
Example: “How can you argue your point about being environmentally conscious when you drive a car?”
Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
Example: “My friend got sick after eating at that restaurant, so the food there must be unsafe.”
Appeal to Ignorance
An appeal to ignorance suggests that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This fallacy relies on a lack of evidence against a claim as proof of the claim’s validity.
Example: “No one has proven that human activity is the sole cause of climate change, so it must not be a significant factor.”
Appeal to Emotion
The appeal to emotion manipulates people’s emotions to get them to accept a claim as true. Instead of solid evidence, it relies on emotional responses to persuade the audience.
Example: “Imagine the joy on a puppy’s face if you adopt it. How can you say no to that?”
Undergraduate philosophy students can improve their paper quality by following the above philosophy paper checklist. The step-by-step guidance covers major aspects of the writing process, from pre-writing and structuring to revising and checking for common fallacies. A well-crafted undergraduate philosophy paper aims to present opposing views accurately, defend a coherent thesis, address objections thoughtfully, and demonstrate a deep understanding of philosophical concepts.