Philosophy Paper

[Ryllharu]

You can argue both sides, I had to do it a lot in my last philosophy course (Asian philosophies and religions, great class, a real midnblower). It's still important to make the stance you are going with known before you start.

The way I've always liked to do it is say which point I'm agreeing with, give the reasons why, and then go into the reasons why the other one *could* be valid, but is still not quite as right. When making an persuasive paper, the best way is to take one side, agree with the one, and shoot the other down. You still have to thoroughly explain both sides, but it gives it more of a focus and impact when you pick one from the beginning.

This is basically what I've been told to do since about the 8th grade, after we were finally told to cover both sides on persuasive essays.

NOTE: Stream of consciousness can be one of the best writing styles for poetry, but is one of the worst for persuasive essays, or position and research papers. Yours is a little like that, and you definitely want to stay away from that. Even for a philosophy paper, the more clearly your point gets across, the better. There's a reason why no one likes Kant.

[Stoopider]

SK. Can you paragraph your essay please? I'm having trouble reading that.

And you might want to restructure your essay. I'm having trouble following your line of thought. But it's a good start.

[Stoopider]

I usually like to break it down into questions and your pointers, so thats its more easy to follow. Right now I'm not following you at all. Break it down into questions, add up the points, then write it out in a clear, concise, and articulate manner. This is what I've broken down in your essay.

Your Stand : 1.Unjust laws are not laws at all.

What is the Law?
1.The Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone.

What is an Unjust Law?
1.Not Applicable to everyone.
2.It is a Law that doesn't bring justice. - You'll need to talk about what is justice
3.has no expectation of obedience
4.Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed = Meaning that it's illogical? Or fallible?
5.If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. - It requires to be legitimate (approved by the legal state body?)
6.Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. - If they have similar consequence, it doesn't make it justified. (?) ~ What is justice?
7.Outside of societal normality - Example: Jim Crowe Laws (?) Or Simply, laws that don't make sense, cannot be adhered to? (Similar to point 4)
8. Involved with Tyranny. Oppression of the weak.
9. Unjust laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law – Created without thorough thought process? Not Well enforced laws? Or impossible to enforce? (Same as point 7 and point 4)
10. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another. – Same as Tyranny (Part 8)
11. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws – Unjust Laws not as powerful? Needs more explanation

Why Do Unjust laws still exist?
1. Unjust laws have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because the peoples state of fear to challenge the legal system.
2. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. - ???? Probably could be somewhere else.
3. People don’t question the laws or question enough.

How should a Just Law be carried out? What are Just Laws?
1. It must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced
2. Expectation of obedience.
3. Requires Legitimacy (Who makes it legitimate?) - Authorised by who?
4. Punishing those that act outside of natural human societal normality
5. because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness (?) – This is not a correct statement btw.
6. Exist forever? - "Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law."


Wtf statements. No idea what your thinking in these.

1. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law.

2. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it.
~ What legitimacy?


3.If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver).

[Board of Command]

First comment: Make paragraphs. A single block of text this size is a crime against humanity.

Second comment: The overall tone of this sounds like someone rambling on about unjust laws. Imagine two guys casually arguing over some philosophical matter - that's what this sounds like. Maybe this is due to not having paragraphs, which creates a feeling of poor structure.

[SK]

First comment: Make paragraphs. A single block of text this size is a crime against humanity.

Second comment: The overall tone of this sounds like someone rambling on about unjust laws. Imagine two guys casually arguing over some philosophical matter - that's what this sounds like. Maybe this is due to not having paragraphs, which creates a feeling of poor structure.

Thanks everyone for the input, Apraxhren and Stoopider etc.

My style when it comes to this kind of stuff is to just start typing, then I can try to see where I was going and revise. It is not structured at all, it can sound a bit like rambling, but I think I do a good job of staying on the main point. Many philosophers don't, mainly what is called "hard" philosophy ie Hegel, Kant etc.

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

[XanBcoo]

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

I'm the same way. However it's still a good idea to organize your thoughts (perhaps as Stoopider suggested) instead of writing them out in stream-of-conscious ramblings, as Ryllharu said. This will make it harder to go back and reorganize later on in the writing process.

What I usually do is separate each "concept" in to its own paragraph, and then once I've got all the information I need, I pick and choose from each paragraph, placing the necessary points where they would need to be in the final draft.

Since you are forming a logical argument, you have to make sure that one statement logically follows from the last. So far it seems you haven't done this. Your sentences are also extremely choppy, and you need to fix grammar mistakes/run-on sentences/etc. If you do upload a word file, I wouldn't mind proofreading it, which is my guilty (nerdy) pleasure. Good luck.

[Stoopider]

Yup, break down your essay into portions and re-write it. At the moment it's everywhere, you have good points, but it's hard to follow your train of thought reading the essay. You might want to restructure it. It's not awful, just needs structure.