6 philosophers want to see the arguments for a view.

And do
A GOOD USE OF EX AM P LES not argue from what the dictionary says about something.
If the dictionary defines truth as “correspondence with
Jen is arguing for the thesis that it is permissible
reality”, you cannot use this as an argument that truth
for me to perform some actions that have
is correspondence with reality because either you are
foreknown side effects which it wouldn’t be
treating the dictionary as an authority, or you are citing
permissible to aim at directly. She uses examples
it as a reporter of common usage. But philosophers don’t
successfully both to elucidate the notion of a
want to know what most people think or assume about
“foreknown side-effect,” and to help bring our
what truth is, they want to know what is actually the
intuitions to bear on her thesis:
case! (N.B.: you may also be misled when you consult
A foreknown side-effect of an action is an event or state the dictionary because some words have technical,
of affairs that one does not aim at when one acts, but philosophical meanings within the subject that differ from
that one knows will (likely) result from one’s action. their ordinary usage.)
For example, I decide to drive to class in order to save
time. I know that my driving will leave the parking
Sources
space in front of my house empty. The empty parking
space is a foreknown side-effect of my action: I don’t You may freely use the arguments of other philosophers
aim at it, because my aim is only to get myself to school in your papers as long as you credit them appropriately,
faster. and also do your own philosophical thinking. Again, if
you need to explain someone else’s argument, you must
…
do so in your own words and according to your own clear
To help prove my point about the difference in understanding of the logical steps involved in it. It is also
permissibility between aims and foreknown side-effects, extremely important that when you explain the arguments
I will use the following hypothetical example: Bill of other philosophers, you interpret them charitably. This
the bomber pilot has decided to bomb an important does not mean that you are barred from criticizing them,
munitions factory. Bill knows that the factory is next but rather that you must interpret each author as holding
to a hospital, and that about 1,000 civilian casualties the strongest possible argument consistent with what they
are likely. But bombing the factory will bring an early have written. If a philosopher’s argument seems obviously
defeat to the enemy by cutting their arms flow. This wrong, then you probably do not understand it properly.
will demoralize them and help end the war. Bill’s Even if a philosopher’s argument seems right, you must
action, I contend, may be permissible. Now I’ll just take great care to avoid confusing their argument with any
alter the case slightly: Bob the bomber pilot has decided other argument that sounds similar to it.
to bomb a munitions factory. Bob knows that the
You can help yourself to avoid these difficulties by training
factory is next to a hospital, and that about 1,000
yourself to read philosophy articles extremely slowly and
civilian casualties are likely. In fact, bombing the factory
carefully in order to understand the precise steps of the
is the best way to bring about such a high number of
author’s argument. It is not unusual to have to read a
casualties, and this is why Bob has decided to bomb
philosophy article several times in order to grasp its details.
there. Bringing about this many civilian casualties will
Philosophy is difficult by nature: to avoid making things
help weaken the enemy’s resolve and thereby bring an
even harder, make sure that the argument in your paper is
early end to the war. (It will also have a side-effect of
absolutely as clear and easy to understand as possible!
cutting their arms flow). I contend that Bob’s action is
clearly impermissible. If you are asked to offer an argument or an objection and
the assignment does not require that it be your own, then
Examples like these might bring clear moral
you may generally use one that you have learned in class
intuitions, and if Jen can construct an example
or from the readings, with proper credit. In this case, you
in which she can convince us that it is indeed
should not only put the argument in your own words
clear that something would be permitted as a
and in the logical form that seems clearest to you, but also
foreknown side-effect but not as an aim, she will
see whether there is any way in which you can improve
have a good argument for her thesis.
on the argument you have heard. Perhaps you can offer
reason to modify it, or offer extra considerations in defense
of it that help explain why you yourself find it plausible.
There are a couple of types of “evidence” that you should
Look for ways to show that you are doing your own
not use in philosophy papers: Do not argue that a claim
philosophical reasoning.
is true, or is likely to be true, just because someone of
great authority believed it. Authorities can be wrong, and