Write a 2-3 page paper (typed, double-spaced, 1″ margins, standard font
and poin
Write a 2-3 page paper (typed, double-spaced, 1″ margins, standard font and point) on one
of the following topics. Your paper may be longer than 3 pages, but I’m not expecting
anything long. Because this is a short paper, it should not have a long introduction, nor does
it need much of a conclusion. Your introduction should state your central issue and thesis.
The rest of your paper should clarify, explain, and support your thesis. Let me tell you that
your thesis can be a claim of not knowing: it doesn’t necessarily have to make a positive
point. But even a negative thesis needs to be supported—in other words, you need to
explain clearly why none of the available positions are clearly right.In a good paper, every
sentence will be easy to understand, and the structure of the sentences and paragraphs will
make sense as a clarification and defense of the thesis. Also, a good paper will demonstrate
a rich understanding of the dialogues. Sometimes a student will say to me, “But I thought
you just wanted my opinion.” Eliminate the just in that sentence: I do want your opinion,
but it should be an opinion that shows your having thought seriously about the text, and it
should be well supported and explained.In such a short paper you should avoid all but very
brief quotations, if you quote at all. You are encouraged to cite according to the Stephanus
numbers the passages you are drawing your conclusions from (e.g. 13a-b).TopicsIs Socrates
and, more broadly speaking philosophy itself, innocent or guilty of the charges brought
against him? Take a side in this issue, and defend it. Be clear on exactly how Socrates is
innocent or guilty of the charges; and give some thoughtful consideration to the other
side.In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks, “Is an action holy because the gods approve of it, or do
the gods approve of it because it is holy?”Consider another version of that question (e.g., Is
an action moral because humans approve of it, or do we approve of it because it’s moral?, or
Is something beautiful because we think it is, or do we think it is because it’s really
beautiful?). Frame a philosophical discussion of both sides. Draw on the Euthyphro to help
you explore the topic.Consider the question raised in the Crito about our duty to follow the
laws. Explain and evaluate Socrates’s idea that we are obliged by a social contract to respect
the laws. Make sure that whatever your position you thoughtfully consider both – or all –
sides of the issue.You may also write on a topic of your own choosing, as long as it pertains
to one of the Socratic dialogues or some central issue that we have raised. If you do this, you
must approve the topic first with me (the easiest way to do so is by email). A paper on an
unapproved topic will not be accepted.GRADING CONSIDERATIONSThese categories are not

averaged into an overall grade. The overall grade will reflect the paper as a whole; these
grades reflect the paper considered in terms of its parts.Intellectual AdventureA-B: The
main idea is the result of having thought deeply about the issue—of having explored the
main facets of it imaginatively, and of having discovered something beyond what you
initially believed. (Note: simply saying that you’ve accomplished these things is
irrelevant.)C: The main idea is reasonable and grounded in an adequate understanding of
the issue.D-F: The paper shows little sign of intellectual engagement with the issue.Thesis
and IntroductionA-B: The introduction describes succinctly and vividly the main issue. The
thesis, which is easy to spot, gives a precise answer to an important issue; e.g., “I will argue
that the Socratic view of the will, that humans always do what they take to be the good, can
adequately account for most but not all human action; in particular, it can’t account for
certain self-destructive behavior or that rare kind of action we regard as truly evil.”C: The
introduction is general. The main issue is merely stated. The thesis is a topic sentence; e.g.,
“My paper is about the adequacy of the Socratic view of the will.”D-F: The introduction is
rambling; it is difficult to know what the paper is about. A thesis cannot be identified with
confidence.Writing (tone, sentence flow, word choice, phrasing, grammar, punctuation,
paragraph structure)A: The essay is a vivid exposition of the topic. The diction is precise.
The sentences flow nicely, as do the paragraphs. There are no errors in grammar or
punctuation. The essay lends itself to being read aloud.B-C: The essay adequately presents
the topic. The diction is correct, but sometimes terms are too broad or too narrow. An
occasional awkward construction distracts the reader from the content. There are a few—
but not many—errors in grammar or punctuation.D-F: Multiple sentences are choppy,
incomplete, rambling, or awkward. Paragraphs are difficult to comprehend. There are
multiple errors in grammar and punctuation. The essay resists being read
aloud.ArgumentationA-B: The main ideas are clearly and powerfully defended.
Counterarguments are considered and rebutted, where space admits. Weak or unsound
arguments are not used. Rhetoric is never substituted for argument.C: The main ideas are
supported, but the support is incomplete or not always compelling. Counterarguments have
been considered but not completely. Rhetoric is sometimes used in place of argument.D-F:
The ideas are weakly supported. Fallacies (e.g., straw man, ad hominem, circular reasoning)
take the place of argument. It isn’t clear that all relevant positions have been carefully
considered.