More writing samples

You'll find the study questions for next week's readings in the previous post. Here are a few more writing samples for you to think about. Let's start with a selection arguing against the view espoused by the student in Crime and Punishment:

There cannot be any reason to kill an entirely innocent person no matter what the benefit. Though one may be inclined to disagree, they simply do so because of distance. For example, it is easy to surrender the life of some foreign person who one will never see, never see a picture of, never hear of, et cetera in exchange for money to give to struggling single mothers. It is especially easy for the single mothers who would benefit from this. However, you ask these same mothers to sacrifice their own child to help out one hundred other single mothers raise their children and not a single mother (at least not a rational one) will hand over her precious child. When the distance is removed and the innocent person becomes near to one, one’s opinion changes. One must keep in mind, though, that whoever this innocent person is, they almost certainly would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for this ideal, nor would anyone who was personally close to this person.

This selection is an excellent example of depth in an argument. The author anticipates an objection that killing an innocent is justified if it leads to a greater good, but heads off the objection by showing that such arguments are only convincing if it is not myself or my loved ones being sacrificed. The author then gives evidence of this by contrasting two compelling examples that illustrate how the principle of greater good becomes less convincing the closer it strikes to home.

Also notice the way the author introduces the examples with a general statement about distance, then gives detail to this general claim by appealing to specific examples, and finally (a step often overlooked), explicitly draws out the conclusion that the examples are supposed to support ("when the distance is removed...").

It's worth noting that this selection is from a paper that ultimately sided with the student, so it's a good example of sympathetic reasoning--of trying to deeply understand the other side's point of view before responding critically.

Next, another argument opposing the student's view:

In the selected passage from Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment the main character Raskolnikov overhears a peculiar conversation. He hears a student and a young officer discussing the same old woman that he has been thinking about killing. They reveal that she is very cruel to her sister and the people that knows and lends money to. They also reveal that the old woman is willing all of her money to a monastery, rather than to the people. The student concludes that one would be justified to kill her and take her money, because it would benefit so many people than if she was left to die of natural causes. It is my opinion that one would be justified in killing her, since it would help so many people.

First I will explain the opposing side's view, the view that it would not be justifiable to kill a person, no matter what. It would never be justified to kill another human being because human life is valuable above everything else. It would be wrong to extinguish the life of even the cruelest of human beings. It would be better to try and convince the woman and any other human being to do good deeds with the riches they have been blessed with. It you could show the person the error in their ways, and help them change for the better it would be a greater deed than killing them and redistributing their wealth. You would not only help all of those other people, but you would help the person with the wealth.

Here we have an excellent example of a number of aspects of form. First, the opening paragraph efficiently introduces the context (the book, the characters, the student's view) in a way that is concise (not including unnecessary details) but effective--it includes everything a general reader who has not read the material needs to know to follow the argument. It also demonstrates clarity by making evident the structure of the essay as it progresses. First it presents the student's view, then clearly identifies the author's own view to be defended, and finally makes a smooth transition to the opposing view, which it clearly identifies as a possible point of view that the author doesn't share. It's easy when juggling lots of sides of an argument to confuse the reader about which view is your own, so this is an example of how good organization and good transitions can prevent confusion.

The critical argument is also a great example of balance between clarity and depth. When taking an argument into greater depth, it is easy to get off topic, or to lose the course of the argument, which can hurt the clarity of the essay. In this case, the argument is presented in just a brief paragraph, but still shows depth. It does so, first, by going beyond the basic, obvious argument that killing is wrong. It explains why it's wrong -- life is valuable -- and goes a step further to explain that life is more valuable than anything else. This is an important clarification, since there are lots of valuable things in the world that we are sometimes willing to sacrifice for a greater end. The next statement nicely emphasizes this by pointing out that in no case, even that of "the cruelest" of persons, would this value be worth sacrificing. Finally, the passage makes effective use of an example (persuading the woman to be a better person) as a way of showing that there is potential value in any human life.

One final writing sample:

Every human, no matter how base, how despicable, how far gone into the worst possible excesses and wrongs, has the basic right to their life. The old woman from Crime and Punishment may be cheap, “disgusting,” “cursed,” “wicked,” and “capricious,” but she too does not deserve to lose her life. She also does not deserve to have others decide what is “right” to do with her money. The woman is obviously still in her right mind; there is no mental disability that calls into question her decision-making. She simply wants all her money to go to a convent that she has picked out. While this choice may seem a waste to the student and the officer, and may certainly seem heartless to her half-sister Lizaveta, it is nonetheless the decision put down in the old woman’s will, and that should be honored.

The basic problem with deciding to kill this old woman in order to rid the world of one cruel hag and use said hag’s money in order to accomplish good is one of authority. No matter how persuasive the case, no matter how grotesque the crime, it is authority that is needed in order for one human to deem another unworthy of life.

This is an excellent example of both clarity and depth. It begins with a very explicit statement of its key claim: that every human has a right to life. While by itself, this would just be a contradictory and controversial view, and not give us reasons for accepting it, the author backs it up with a number of strong reasons. First, the author suggests that this right can be questioned only if the person deserves death--in other words, by turning the tables and insisting that the opposing side justify the right to kill. The author adds an additional reason for questioning the student's proposal--it would involve assuming the right to make decision on behalf of a free and rational adult. The author adds depth to this point by explaining why the woman's case is not a justified case of imposing on freedom of decision--there's no specific reason to treat her as not responsible for her own decisions (as there might be in the case of children, the mentally ill, etc.). Finally, the author clarifies the position by underlining the basic problem: whether the student claims a right to kill or a right to decide on behalf of someone else, in both cases the student claims to possess a special kind of authority over others.