Critically evaluate Mills liberty principle
a) to answer the question directly, and to avoid straying from the subject or padding your paper with trite and superfluous remarks like, \”Since the beginning of time, humankind has been concerned about justice.\” (Almost any sentence beginning \”Since the beginning of time\” is likely to be a dud.) If you had (as I did) one of those high school teachers who taught you to \”funnel\” your opening paragraph, you\’ll need to work at unlearning that. Do start your paper with a clear statement of what you aim to accomplish in the paper. That statement should be specific. It shouldn\’t merely say \”I am going to discuss Mill\’s claims on liberty\” but should indicate what you are going to argue for or what you are going to try to figure out. Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish the thesis for which you will argue from some other thesis with which it might be confused. And it is often a good idea to indicate briefly how you will go about answering your question or arguing for your claim. b) to be clear and precise. My first philosophy professor recommended reading a rough draft of one\’s paper aloud to oneself out in the woods, listening for unclarities and claims that need further defense. The dangers of violent crime probably militate against standing alone in a forest reading a paper, but the advice (with that revision) is excellent. Whether you do it aloud or silently, do summon up all your courage and read your paper as if you were your own critic. Whatever your technique, be sure to leave plenty of time to rewrite your paper, improving organization, clarity and argument. c) to defend your view. Don\’t write for the converted. Don\’t assume that your view is obviously right (or that it\’s hopeless to convince someone who doesn\’t think so). Aim to convince someone who hasn\’t made up her or his mind on the subject, is open-minded, but is going to hear arguments for an opposing position after listening to you. Anticipate (the best) objections and seek to defuse them. d) to spell out exactly what you mean. Don\’t write for a mind-reader; and don\’t allude (without explaining the point) to something said in class. Write for someone who is very literate and intelligent but not a member of our class. Relatedly: in analytic philosophy it isn\’t a virtue to be mysterious and enigmatic. Avoid reliance on metaphors. (It\’s okay to use one, but be sure to explain it, as well.) e) to look at what can be said on both (or all) sides of the issue. Give each view the best possible shot, and then defend your position. f) not to spend too much of the paper summarizing the view you are evaluating (if you are evaluating a view). It usually works well to develop your criticisms right away, and in explaining them, explain the view you are criticizing.
