Prof.

Rulli | PHI 116

How to Read a Philosophy Paper

There are two kinds of texts for this class: A) Kagans textbook, and B) other philosophers
philosophical articles. This handout is specifically with type B in mind. In a textbook, the author is
trying to explain material to you in an accessible way. S/he may not always be arguing for a
particular position, but is laying out the landscape of a debate that is familiar in the field. Some of
the following may still apply.

In either case, the reading may be denser than other kinds of course readings youve encountered. If
you feel that reading philosophy is especially difficult, you are not alone. I find it ideal to read each
piece twice. I know you wont always be able to do that

Philosophy is written with careful precision and good philosophers are meticulous about the words
they choose and they way they express ideas. As such, philosophical writing requires you to slow
down and read each sentence carefully and exactly. You cannot breeze through a course reading. If
you encounter terms that you dont know, look them up in a dictionary (or more importantly, see if
the author provides his/her own definition).

As you read a philosophy paper, ask yourself the following questions. In fact, write down the
answers to each of these as you read.
Below, for an example, I use Peter Singers Famine, Affluence and Morality, a paper commonly used in
intro to philosophy classes. Its ok if youre not familiar with it. Youll still get the idea.

1. What is the main topic that the author is addressing? By topic, I mean the general, broad theme
of the essay.
Singer: what should we do about people in desperate need in our world?

2. What is the authors main thesis? A thesis is more specific than a topic. While a topic identifies a
theme, a thesis is where the author asserts his/her opinion on the matter. A thesis is
argumentative in nature. It is staking a position in a debate.
Singer: people have a moral obligation to donate money to aid people in need, wherever they
are, at least when giving costs them nothing of moral significance (and potentially up until the
point at which the person would be significantly burdened by giving more).

3. Identify the dialectic:
A dialectic is a conversation between two people on opposing sides of an issue. You should
think of philosophy papers as the author having a conversation with an imaginary person who
disagrees with her. She is trying to convince him of her argument, while considering and
responding to his objections.

Dialectic is not always explicit, but it is there. If you ever get lost and wonder what the author is
talking about, or why s/he is going on about something, ask yourself where you are in the
dialectic. Is she making an argumentative point? Is she explaining her opponents objection? Is
she responding to his objection?

Do the following to identify the dialectic:
A. What is the authors argument to support the thesis? The argument may consist of many
parts (premises). The author will argue for the premise or stipulate it. Identify each of these
and how they work together as a whole.
Singer:
i. Premise 1: suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.

Prof. Rulli | PHI 116

Argument: he thinks this is obvious.

ii. Premise 2: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without
thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought, morally, to do it
Argument: He gives the shallow pond example.

B. What objections are there to the authors argument or premises? Objections may occur at
many different places in the paper. (I list only 2)
i.
One might argue that Singers principle should take into account spatial proximity
between victim and rescuer.
ii.
One might think that it matters, morally, whether I am just one among millions
who could do the rescue.

C. What are the authors responses to these objections?
a. In both cases- we might have a difference in our psychological reactions (to people
faraway vs. close by; to helping when were the only ones who can do so vs. when were
1 among millions), but this does not make a moral difference.
i. As such, we cannot discriminate against someone simply because they are far
away.
ii. Being 1 among millions doesnt change my obligations. He uses a shallow pond
example in which there are many bystanders. He then shows how the
assumptions in this argument are flawed. IF everyone gave 5 pounds, then I
would only need to give 5. But that point has no bearing on a situation in which
not everyone gives 5 pounds.

D. What does the author conclude?
a. For one, that our traditional moral categories are upset by this argument. What we once
thought was just charitygiving money to people in need in far away placesis now a
moral duty.

Be a critic:
E. Did the author miss any important objections? Do you think her/his responses were
adequate? Can you charitably guess how the author would respond to your objections?
F. Do you think the author adequately supported her/his thesis? The conclusion will restate
this thesis. Does the conclusion also point to more important issues? If so, what are they?

To summarize:
1. What is the main topic of the essay?
2. What is the authors thesis?
3. Identify the dialectic:
a. What are the major premises and how does the author argue for each?
b. What objections are there to the argument or premises?
c. How does the author respond to those objections?
4. Be a critic:
a. Did the author miss any important objections?
b. If so, can you charitably guess how the author might respond?
c. Do you think the authors arguments and responses were adequate?
d. Do you think the author adequately supported his/her thesis?
e. What are some further conclusions from the essay?