How to Write a Philosophy Paper

TL;DR

• Philosophy papers are about constructing and defending arguments, not sharing opinions or summarizing what philosophers said
• The basic structure: state your thesis, present your argument, consider objections, reply to objections, conclude
• Clarity is everything — philosophy professors value precise, clear writing over flowery prose
• The strongest philosophy papers engage seriously with the best counterarguments, not just the easy ones to dismiss

---

Philosophy papers are unlike anything else you'll write in college. They're not research papers. They're not personal essays. They're not book reports on what Plato said.

They're arguments.

Your job in a philosophy paper is to take a position on a philosophical question, construct the strongest possible case for that position, and defend it against objections. That's it. But doing it well is genuinely challenging.

The good news: philosophy papers follow a clear structure. Once you understand what's expected, the format actually makes writing easier, not harder.

What Makes Philosophy Papers Different

They're About Arguments, Not Topics

In a history essay, you argue about what happened. In an English essay, you analyze a text. In a philosophy paper, you argue about what should be believed or what is true.

"Is it morally permissible to lie to save someone's feelings?" That's a philosophy question. Your paper doesn't describe various opinions about lying. It takes a position and defends it with reasoning.

Clarity Beats Eloquence

In English class, beautiful prose earns points. In philosophy, it actively hurts you if it comes at the expense of clarity. Philosophy professors want to follow your reasoning precisely. Every sentence should make your argument clearer.

Bad (sounds sophisticated but says nothing): "The ontological implications of deception within interpersonal frameworks reveal a complex interplay between utilitarian considerations and deontological imperatives."

Good (clear and specific): "I argue that lying is sometimes morally permissible when it prevents serious harm, because the duty to help others can outweigh the duty to tell the truth."

Depth Over Breadth

A philosophy paper that makes ONE argument really well is better than one that touches on five arguments superficially. Go deep. Anticipate every objection. Follow every implication. Your professor wants to see thorough reasoning, not a survey of philosophical positions.

The Structure of a Philosophy Paper

1. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs)

Include:

• The philosophical question you're addressing
• Your thesis (your answer to that question)
• A brief roadmap of your argument

Example: "In this paper, I argue that moral responsibility requires free will, and that determinism is compatible with free will. I first define the relevant terms, then present my main argument for compatibilism, consider the strongest objection from hard determinists, and explain why that objection fails."

Notice: no dramatic hook needed. No broad historical overview. Just state what you're going to argue and how. Philosophers appreciate directness.

2. Background/Setup (1-2 paragraphs)

Define key terms and set up the debate. Don't assume your reader knows the background — explain the philosophical context clearly.

Tips:

• Define terms precisely: "By 'free will,' I mean the ability to have done otherwise in a given situation"
• Present the main positions in the debate fairly before defending yours
• Be neutral in this section — you're setting the stage, not arguing yet

3. Your Argument (2-4 paragraphs)

This is the core of your paper. Present your argument step by step.

The best structure for an argument:

Premise 1: [Statement you claim is true] Premise 2: [Another statement you claim is true] Conclusion: [What logically follows from the premises]

Then defend each premise. Why should the reader accept Premise 1? What evidence or reasoning supports it? What about Premise 2?

Example: "My argument proceeds as follows:

1. Moral responsibility requires that a person could have done otherwise (the principle of alternate possibilities).
2. Even under determinism, a person can meaningfully be said to 'have been able to do otherwise' if the deterministic process passed through their rational deliberation.
3. Therefore, determinism is compatible with moral responsibility.

Premise 1 is widely accepted in the philosophical literature... [defend] Premise 2 requires more defense. Consider the following... [defend]"

4. Objections and Replies (2-3 paragraphs)

This is what separates good philosophy papers from great ones. You need to:

1. State the strongest objection to your argument (not a weak one)
2. Present it fairly (as if the objector were writing it themselves)
3. Reply to it (explain why the objection doesn't defeat your argument)

Why the strongest objection? Because defeating a weak objection proves nothing. Defeating a strong objection demonstrates that your argument is robust.

Template: "One might object that [strongest counterargument]. This objection has force because [explain why it's compelling]. However, it fails because [your response]. While the objector is correct that [concede valid points], this doesn't undermine my argument because [explain why]."

5. Conclusion (1 paragraph)

Brief. Restate what you've argued and what you've shown. Optionally mention remaining questions or implications.

Don't introduce new arguments in the conclusion. Don't make grand claims about the importance of your topic. Just wrap up clearly.

Writing Tips Specific to Philosophy

Use Signposts

Philosophy arguments can be hard to follow. Help your reader with explicit signposts:

• "I will now argue that..."
• "There are two reasons to accept this claim."
• "One might object that... I reply..."
• "Having established X, I now turn to Y."
• "To summarize my argument so far..."

These might feel heavy-handed, but philosophy professors love them. They make your reasoning transparent.

Be Precise with Language

Words matter in philosophy. Don't use two different words for the same concept — it creates confusion. Pick a term and stick with it.

Be careful with:

• "All" vs. "most" vs. "some" — these make dramatically different claims
• "Proves" vs. "suggests" vs. "is consistent with" — different levels of certainty
• "Must" vs. "should" vs. "could" — different modal strengths
• "Necessary" vs. "sufficient" — learn these and use them correctly

Avoid Common Writing Pitfalls

Don't write:

• "I feel that..." (philosophy is about reasoning, not feelings)
• "It's obvious that..." (if it were obvious, you wouldn't need to argue for it)
• "Since the beginning of time, humans have wondered about..." (skip the grand opening)
• "In conclusion, there are many valid points on both sides" (take a position and defend it)
• "Webster's dictionary defines X as..." (define terms philosophically, not with dictionary quotes)

Do write:

• "I argue that..."
• "The strongest reason to accept this claim is..."
• "This objection fails because..."
• "While X is plausible, Y provides better reasons to..."

Engage with the Texts

If your assignment involves responding to a specific philosopher (Plato, Kant, Mill, etc.), show that you've read and understood them:

• Use direct quotes sparingly but accurately
• Paraphrase complex arguments in your own words
• Don't just agree or disagree — explain WHY
• Distinguish between what the philosopher said and your interpretation of what they meant

Check Your Logic

Before submitting, verify your argument:

• Do your premises actually support your conclusion? (Validity)
• Are your premises true? (Soundness)
• Have you committed any logical fallacies? Common ones:
  • Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument
  • Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent's view to make it easier to refute
  • Begging the question: Assuming the conclusion in your premises
  • False dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist
  • Appeal to authority: Citing someone as evidence when expertise alone isn't proof

Example: Putting It Together

Here's a simplified outline of a philosophy paper on the trolley problem:

Thesis: It is morally permissible to pull the lever in the trolley problem, redirecting the trolley to kill one person instead of five, because the moral weight of outcomes outweighs the moral significance of the act/omission distinction.

Background: The trolley problem, the act/omission distinction, consequentialism vs. deontology

Argument:

• Premise 1: If we can prevent more deaths without significantly violating any person's rights, we should
• Premise 2: Pulling the lever prevents four additional deaths
• Premise 3: The one person on the side track has no more right to safety than each of the five
• Conclusion: We should pull the lever
• Defend each premise with reasoning

Objection: The doctrine of double effect states that it's wrong to use a person as a means to save others. By pulling the lever, you're using the one person's death as a means.

Reply: The doctrine of double effect doesn't apply here because the one person's death is a foreseen side effect, not a means. The lever doesn't work BY killing the one — it redirects the trolley, and the death is an unfortunate consequence. This is different from, say, pushing someone in front of the trolley.

Conclusion: Restate that outcomes should guide our moral decisions in cases where no one has a special claim, while acknowledging remaining difficulties for pure consequentialism.

Using AI for Philosophy Papers

AI can help with philosophy papers in specific, limited ways:

• Understanding complex texts: "Explain Kant's categorical imperative in simple terms" — Gradily can break down hard philosophical concepts
• Identifying objections: "What are the strongest objections to utilitarian ethics?"
• Checking logical structure: "Is this argument valid? [your premises and conclusion]"
• Clarifying definitions: "What's the philosophical difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism?"

What AI cannot do: construct original philosophical arguments. The reasoning, the analysis, and the replies to objections need to be yours. Philosophy professors are exceptionally good at distinguishing genuine philosophical thinking from surface-level recitation.

Your unique perspective and reasoning are the whole point. AI can help you understand the debate, but your contribution to it must be genuine.

The Secret to Good Philosophy Papers

Here's what most students miss: your professor doesn't care whether they agree with your conclusion. They care about the quality of your reasoning.

A well-argued paper defending a position your professor disagrees with will score higher than a poorly argued paper defending a position they agree with.

Philosophy is about how you think, not what you conclude. Defend your position clearly, engage honestly with the best objections, and write with precision. Do those three things, and you'll write philosophy papers that earn real respect — from your professor and from yourself.