The paper should be at least five pages long, plus a title sheet and a References page. The better papers are usually closer to six pages. Use a standard 12-point font and standard margins, as defined by the St. Martin’s Handbook used in English classes. You can definitely double-space (if you have a quote longer than three or four lines you should really indent it and single-space that quote; if you aren't sure how to do that ask me and I will be happy to help you.) Remember to write as if your reader had never taken a philosophy course. Choose the question about which you would like to write a paper. You can pick a question that is not on the list of suggestions I give you, but in that case, I want you to ask me about your question before you begin to write, and submit the question you attempt to address in writing so I have a clear understanding of what it is you are trying to achieve. Good papers make use of at least two philosophers we have read, and use direct “quotes” from them. Any quotations and paraphrasing must be cited properly, with quotation marks and parenthetical references. You are not required to use outside sources, but you are encouraged to do so. If you choose to, you must cite them carefully. This includes internet resources – give me the url and all the information you can, and use direct quotes. Before you use an online resource, check to make sure that it is scholarly. For example, Wikipedia is not scholarly, while the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is scholarly. Look for quality sources. Introduce your topic/question in the introductory paragraph, and explain your methodology (i.e., say whose writings you will discuss, who you will agree and disagree with, and state briefly your own position in the introductory paragraph). You should use first person sentence structure (“I will argue that...” “I will disagree with...”) I. You should clearly explain the position(s) taken by the author(s) that you have chosen to write about. Don’t spend too much of the paper summarizing, but do enough to show that you really did understand the reading and that you have given the `author a fair reading. II. Next, you must respond to the position of the authors you are discussing. This involves careful explanation of, and criticism of, the arguments given in those articles. Say why the arguments work or do not work. Point to any tensions or inconsistencies the author missed. Imagine any nasty consequences of the author’s position that the author did not anticipate or address, but should have. III. Writing about these readings should prepare you for the next requirement of the paper, a careful explanation of your own position on the issue. Try to use creative, real world examples that relate to your philosophical views – movies, television, experiences, life! Feel free to explain your position in reference to the other articles you have read (for example, you might have sentences that begin “Unlike Locke, I believe that....” or “In response to Hume, I would argue that.....”). Just be sure to back up your positions with good reasons: give premises for your conclusions, give reasons why you think what you think. IV. Finally, it would be a good idea to take a step back and address an argument against your position (“Some persons, such as _____, might disagree with my position on whether or not humans can be said to have innate ideas. They would argue that......”). Then try to explain the opponent’s position, and respond to it as best you can (“I find that this argument against my position is incorrect or misconceived because....”). In this way you can imagine the paper divided into four parts: I. a careful and objective summary of what the author said about your question, II. comparison and critique, III. argument for your own ideas on that particular question, and IV. responses to criticisms of your view from part III. You must summarize, argue, problematize, criticize, address specific tensions, as well as argue for your own position. Using the readings and discussion of various issues in class, you will be able to go through this kind of process, and you will become better and better at explaining, defending and criticizing the various positions on contemporary moral issues. It is an excellent idea to have a friend read your paper, especially one not in the class. Besides testing to see if you have explained the readings clearly, a friend may be able to help you see arguments you may not have seen, not to mention errors in spelling and grammar usage.

Both Plato and Kant make a distinction between what might be called “appearances” and “reality.” Clearly explain how they make this distinction, making sure to restate not only their terminology for appearances and reality but also how we come to know what we can know about each (“faculties of the soul”, etc.). Compare and contrast their ways of making the distinction, and argue for what you believe is the better way of making the distinction.
Introduce your topic/question in the introductory paragraph, and explain your methodology (i.e., say whose writings you will discuss, who you will agree and disagree with, and state briefly your own position in the introductory paragraph). You should use first person sentence structure (“I will argue that...” “I will disagree with...”)

In this academic body of work I will be discussing Plato's The Republic and Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Plato and Kant both make a distinction between what might be called "appearances" and "reality". While I agree with both theories on "appearances", I will say that I agree more with Plato's theory than Kant's.

I. You should clearly explain the position(s) taken by the author(s) that you have chosen to write about. Don’t spend too much of the paper summarizing, but do enough to show that you really did understand the reading and that you have given the `author a fair reading. Plato's theory on appearance is that there is more to our worlds outside of simple appearances. Our reality is based on the physical and tangible materials that we are faced with daily, but judging from the Republic that does not necessarily hold what appears to us as the truth of our lives. Plato's argument between the visible world and the intelligible world is purely abstract thinking vs. concrete ways of thinking. Plato wants us to base our truths on what we discover from intellect and not base our truths on only what we can physically see. While Kant's theory is more focused on using appearances as a basis for his morality argument. Kant uses the concept of freedom of will to show that the world we observe physically is basically governed by the idea that every event in our lives has occurred because of another event. Kant is simply arguing that we have no true knowledge of things in themselves which thus leads us to be untrusting of the nature of "appearances".
Next, you must respond to the position of the authors you are discussing. This involves careful explanation of, and criticism of, the arguments given in those articles. Say why the arguments work or do not work. Point to any tensions or inconsistencies the author missed. Imagine any nasty consequences of the author’s position that the author did not anticipate or address, but should have.

I agree with Plato's theory on appearances because it seems the most logically sound without giving way to paranoia like with Kant's argument. Plato simply wants his readers to be weary of the fact that certain things that can be seen are not always what they appear. Kant's theory seems a bit circular because he explains that we base our morality off of our personal freedoms. Kant then goes on to explain that freedom of will helps to govern our morality because we can choose not to act in a certain way. He then goes on to basically state that we cannot always trust our appearances and then questions "reality" in general. Plato on the other hand explains that true lovers of wisdom do not base their logic on "appearance" but base what they know on forms. Both Kant and Plato argue that living in the intelligible world is the best thing any person can do in order to gain true logic over the world we live in. Assuming that we are all rational beings the intelligible world should be the world that we live in. Kant further explains that the "sensible world" is what drives our natural inhibitions or inclinations to act on our animal instincts. Kant's argument of freedom seems completely disciplinarian and a little odd. It seems strange to suggest that we are at our most free when are submitting completely to the "moral law". I feel my most free when I am acting completely off of my impulses. Kant wants to make it seem that we are all slaves to our natural impulses that is why we are only free when we are following the moral law. So in short Kant is arguing that doing what you want to do makes you a slave because we are acting off the illusion of appearances or "sensible world".
Writing about these readings should prepare you for the next requirement of the paper, a careful explanation of your own position on the issue. Try to use creative, real world examples that relate to your philosophical views – movies, television, experiences, life! Feel free to explain your position in reference to the other articles you have read (for example, you might have sentences that begin “Unlike Locke, I believe that....” or “In response to Hume, I would argue that.....”). Just be sure to back up your positions with good reasons: give premises for your conclusions, give reasons why you think what you think.
In response to Plato, I would have to concur with the idea that "appearances" cannot be based off pure assumptions. Although we do it anyway for example: My roommate left the living room light on, which leads me to assume that she will be back shortly. Those assumptions based on the appearance are not necessarily true for my reality because she could have absently mindedly left the lights on and be well on her way to stay at her mother's house for a few days. Plato bases his theory on appearances in reality not because he thinks we are slaves to our senses. I can use Plato's Republic as a guide for future events. Unlike Kant, who believes that by giving into your baser instincts automatically makes you a slave to the world of "appearances". Today I sporadically decided to travel to my sister's house 3 hours away because I missed her although I have to go to work tomorrow evening. Does this make me a slave to my impulses or simply a person acting on their free will? I do not believe spontaneous acts or acting off of your inhibitions make you a slave, but I do however feel that it makes you human.
Finally, it would be a good idea to take a step back and address an argument against your position (“Some persons, such as _____, might disagree with my position on whether or not humans can be said to have innate ideas. They would argue that......”). Then try to explain the opponent’s position, and respond to it as best you can (“I find that this argument against my position is incorrect or misconceived because....”).
In defense of Kant, I can understand why his definition of morality fits fairly well with common intuition. Morality is based on the idea that we restrain our natural impulses so that is does not adversely affect the greater good. Kant's argument is just like any other rationalists idea of morality, so it is understandable why he places such importance on restricting our inhibitions. In the end Kant in some ways leaves it up to the us to determine what rationales will serve as universal laws on morals in our day to day lives. I can agree with this defense of Kant's theory because it helps me comprehend the idea that maybe based of the time period he lived in, and what type of thinker he was gave him the notion that this was a good argument for appearances. Although I still do not think that we are most free when we suppress our inhibitions and follow the law because that does not seem like a fair rationale. The only people that I could think of that would argue against Plato's Republic are the relativists who actually do base logic off of sights and sounds. An example of this is the justice system while in the visible world justice can be seen as relative. So what seems just to one person may seem unjust to another, but the Form of Justice itself is perfect. To argue against Plato seems pretty hard without appearing obtuse because living in the world of "appearances" is equivalent to someone seeing a rotten apple and assuming that all apples are brown. It is as the old adage goes "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."