- Always begin your essay along these lines: “Since the very dawn of time the problem of free will has been considered by many of the greatest and deepest thinkers in history.”
- Always end your essay along these lines: “So it can be seen from the above arguments that there are many different points of view about the free will problem.”
- Whenever in any doubt as to what to say about X, say, apropos of nothing in particular and without explanation, that X is extremely subjective.
- When that gets boring, try saying that X is all very relative. Never say what it is relative to.
- Use language with as little precision as possible. Engage heavily in malapropism and category mistakes. Refer to claims as “arguments” and to arguments as “claims”. Frequently describe sentences as “valid” and arguments as “true”. Use the word “logical” to mean plausible or true. Use “infer” when you mean “imply”. Never use the expression “begging the question” with its correct meaning but use it incorrectly as often as possible.
- “Argument” is perhaps the most important word in philosophy. So why not impress the marker by spelling it with two “e”s?
- Get into the habit of inserting words like “so” and “therefore” between sentences that are entirely irrelevant to one another. This, all by itself, will bring into being a mutual relevance that previously did not exist.
- Be careful always assiduously to avoid answering the question asked. There are so many other more interesting things for you to discuss.
- Put “quotation marks” round words “entirely” at random.
- Be completely defeated by apostrophes. Systematically confuse “its” and “it’s”.
- At some point in every essay, treat the marker to a brief Dr McCoy style sermon about the dangers of being too “logical” when trying to think about the existence of God/moral obligation/free will/the theory of knowledge/any subject matter whatever. To reinforce the point it always helps to point out how once again how very subjective the subject matter in question is.
- Avoid clarity at all costs. Remember: nothing that is clear can possibly be really deep. If as a result the marker gives you a third that just shows that your wisdom is going straight over his/her head (Don’t, whatever you do, heed the words of Peter Medawar: “No one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief.” – What a silly man!)
- Remember. Paragraphs are for sissies. So are headings.
- Only little people use examples. Avoid them strenuously. If you must insist on using some, be sure to do so with studied irrelevance.
Anyone have additional advice for students about how to write a crap essay in philosophy? I'll add:
15. Never ever give your reader an indication of how your reasoning works. Don't explain that this claim follows from that one, or that you're now raising an objection to a claim or argument and so on. Instead, make your reader do the work of figuring our how what you say fits into a coherent, reasoned whole.
I’ve been considering writing a reflective piece about the general quality of bioethics papers in medical journals, focusing on how the medium (the audience and the severe word limits) impacts on the message and its quality – possibly as a bit of a moan since I’ve not yet managed to get a medical journal to accept one of my papers (my favourite rejection from an editor yet being “nice try, but too philosophical – maybe try the journal of medical ethics?”). Furthermore publication pressures tend to select for particular styles of pieces – I’ve remarked to people in the past that the way to get published in the BMJ is to write a piece critical of research ethics review – preferably with an anecdote Then this morning on twitter I saw this lovely funny piece by James Lenman of the University of Sheffield on how to write a crap essay in philosophy which contains gems such as:
“Whenever in any doubt as to what to say about X, say, apropos of nothing in particular and without explanation, that X is extremely subjective.
When that gets boring, try saying that X is all very relative. Never say what it is relative to.”
And I decided to just borrow and extend the idea in this piece. So take James’ rules as given and add these rules to enable the reader to write a crap piece of work in bioethics:
1. Unreflectively copy a piece of work by a philosopher. If they wasted time qualifying their view or noting it only applies in a limited situation make sure you strip that out.
2. Remember if you are a doctor you don’t need good arguments – you have authority… Remember if you are a philosopher you don’t need to know the context to write authoritatively about it.
3. Never use an argument where an anecdote will do. A homily is worth a thousand arguments.
4. Instead of making an argument, say “I will argue”. Then don’t, an assertion will do. No one will notice.
5. Don’t ever make a modest claim when you can make a bold assertion. Only extremes can be correct.
6. According to the OED it is important to define your terms using the dictionary not how they have been defined in the relevant literature.
7. Please do begin your paper with a vaguely relevant quote from “Literature” this shows that you are well read and thus quite clearly correct. As D’Israeli said: “The wisdom of the wise, and the experience of ages, may be preserved by quotation.”
8. If empirical evidence is relevant to your paper make sure you either don’t find any or you just run a google search and then cherry pick the evidence to support your case without considering its quality.
9. Remember the is/ought problem is a philosophical problem not a bioethical problem so you don’t need to worry about it when making grand assertions from tiny bits of empirical evidence.
10. Ad hominem is a valid argument structure.
11. All slopes are slippery. If its bad and it is remotely possible let us assume that it will happen.
12. There are no principles/theories but the four principles.
13. Obviously the four principles approach is the only one worth considering. Make sure you refer to all four principles (but nothing other than them) especially if several of the principles are irrelevant to the situation you are discussing – before concluding that autonomy trumps the others.
14. Remember the more arguments/assertions you can give the better – why waste time on critical reflection and depth when you can squeeze in more arguments/assertions. Especially ensure that there is no methodological or theoretical consistency about the position you advance.
15. If your argument gets into trouble you can save it by referring to Nazi Germany and implying that your opponents view would have been looked on kindly there.
Please suggest more rules in the comments…