Guide to Preparing Your Essay Outline

(N.B. This guide is to be read in conjunction with the ‘Introducing Philosophy’ booklet handed out at the beginning of the course)

An essay outline for this course comprises two components:

• A thesis statement

• A section-by-section summary of the developing argument.

• References

A thesis statement

Your essay should be a good philosophical argument. Such an argument, at minimum, provides good reasons in support of a conclusion. Thus, the first step in writing a good essay is to be clear of the conclusion, i.e. the claim that you are going to be defending. It should be possible to present the claim in no more than a sentence or two that tells the reader what it is that you will argue, and why and how. This is what is known as a thesis statement, and your essay outline should begin with this.

A good thesis statement should:

• Be no longer than a sentence or two

• It should be something philosophically controversial (though not necessarily sensationalist), in that it should not merely be a statement of fact, nor of style, nor of context.

• It should include a reference to the target idea or text.

Examples:

“Pascal’s (1632-62) famed defence of religious faith by appeal to the utility of believing in God rather than the truth of the belief is unsatisfactory since, although it professes to start from a position of metaphysical ignorance, in practice it smuggles in unwarranted assumptions about the utility of believing in the existence of God”.

“Pascal argues that the practical advantage of believing in God outweighs the disadvantages, although this has been challenged by many critics who contend that the argument only succeeds if one conflates pragmatic reasons for believing with epistemic reasons for believing. In this essay, I shall defend Pascal from this charge, by showing that such a conflation is warranted.”

A section-by-section summary

The remainder of the essay should proceed to defend the thesis articulated in the thesis statement. It should provide some context for the claim that you are defending (i.e. explain why anyone would make such a claim and why it is of interest), explain the claim clearly and precisely in your own terms, provide an argument or arguments in defence of the claim and defend the argument from counterargument(s).

Here’s an example (for the second of the theses noted above):

A. Introduction: 100 words

1. Outline difference between pragmatic and epistemic reasons for believing.

2. State that Pascal provides pragmatic reasons for believing that God exists.

3. Provide thesis statement as above.

B. Outline Pascal’s Wager: 300 words

1. Pascal’s assumes metaphysical ignorance, i.e. suppose we don’t have epistemic reasons for believing or denying that God exists.

2. In such a case, Pascal says we need to choose between believing this or denying this.

3. This choice, claims Pascal is not optional. (‘You must wager’).

4. According to Pascal, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational

C. Recast Wager in terms of decision theory. 300 words

1. According to decision theory, it is rational pursue the outcome that has the maximum expectation.

2. To work out maximum expectation, associate each outcome with a utility and a probability of occurrence. Expectation = probability x utility. Compare maximum expectations or each possible outcome for a given course of action.

3. Recast Pascal’s wager using this terminology.

D. The Evidentialist Objection. 300 words.

1. Clifford claims that it is wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

2. If this is true, it would be wrong to believe anything based on pragmatic reasons.

3. This undermines the conclusion of Pascal’s wager.

E. Clifford’s principle is wrong. 500 words.

1. There are certain kinds of cases where Clifford’s Principle does not hold.

2. Example> William James claims that the principle does not hold when faced with a live option that is forced and momentous.

3. Clifford’s principle needs to be limited; there are occasions when it is permissible to form beliefs on insufficient reason.

F. Counter Example: Even a limited Evidentialist Principle applies in Pascal’s case (400 words)

1. My argument assumes that the case of belief in God is such a case where Clifford’s principle does not apply.

2. Counterargument: Belief in god is not forced and thus the principle does apply.

3. My response: It is possible to formulate belief in God in just the way that choice does becomes forced and rules out agnosticism.

G. Conclusion: (100 words)

1. Repeat thesis statement

2. To stress: I have not endorsing Pascal entirely but have merely shown that one common criticism of Pascal fails.

References:

The purpose of the philosophy essay is to argue and not to survey. Thus provided you have read the target source(s) and thought carefully about it, it is not expected that you will have read all the secondary literature on the subject. That said, any source you have used in the essay, either from which you cite or from which you have taken an idea must be referenced formally. (See the plagiarism guide for help in this regard). Your reference section should thus contain the sources of all ideas that are not your own in the essay.

Here’s a sample for the above essay:

References:

Blackburn, S. ‘Infini-Rien’, reprinted in: PHI1024F Course Reader 2010 (ed. J. Wanderer) pages 65-8.
Clifford, W. (1879) “The ethics of belief”, reprinted in: PHI1024F Course Reader 2010 (ed. J. Wanderer) pages 45-49.
James, W. (1897) “The will to believe”, reprinted in: PHI1024F Course Reader 2010 (ed. J. Wanderer) pages 50-58.
Saka, P. (2005) “Pascal’s Wager about God”, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/#H4). Last accessed on: 16th February 2010).