PSA! Has a TON of Scholarship Opportunities Right Now. SPOILER: college is crazy-expensive. Sorry. Did we spoil it? There are...
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
In order to properly complete an essay, it is important to allocate time in which to construct an answer. This is particularly crucial when a question is part of a multi-question essay exam. Once the amount of time available to answer the question is determined, the question is read carefully several times. If there are multiple questions, all questions are read in order to determine the order in which to answer them. Keywords identify what the question is actually asking. There are six different types of questions indicated by keywords: supported thesis, cause and effect, compare and contrast, process analysis, definitions and analysis. Once the type of question is determined, an essay style answer is constructed using the proper type of supporting material. It is a good idea to make an outline for an answer, and jot down a few key phrases on a piece of scrap paper or in the exam margins prior to writing on the sheet that is turned in to be graded.
The basic criticisms that each position makes of the other are simple. Kantians are vulnerable to the charge that they do not give a proper account of the role of feeling and emotion in the moral life. They can also be accused of reifying our capacity for reason in a way that makes mysterious how human beings’ capacities for reason and morality might have evolved. Humeans are vulnerable to the charge that they cannot give any account of the validity of reasoning beyond the boundaries of what we might feel inclined to endorse or reject: Can the Humean really hold that moral reasoning has any validity for people who do not feel concern for others? Contemporary philosophers have developed both positions so as to take account of such criticisms, which has led to rather technical debates about the nature of reason (for instance, Bernard Williams’ (1981) well-known distinction between internal and external reasons) and normativity (what it is for something to provide a reason to act or think in a certain way, for example, Korsgaard, 1996). So far as responsibility is concerned, Wallace (1994) is a well-regarded attempt to mediate between the two approaches. Rather differently, Pettit (2001) uses our susceptibility to reasons as the basis for an essentially interactive account of moral agency.