This page is based on in-class discussions and writing workshops from upper year undergraduate courses in ethics. In those courses, students are sometimes worried about what counts as an “original” argument. Admittedly, many instructors use this language without qualifying what it means. Note that while I write about our courses here, since I am writing directly to my own students, the below is meant to apply across many other courses. My goal is to (1) explain how many instructors use the word “original” in our assignment instructions or rubrics, and (2) explain how that can help you to agree with your authors in an argumentative way. I provide some specific tips for each.
What is an “original” argument?
Sometimes your assignments will say things like “Your argument will be evaluated in terms of accuracy of explanation, depth of support, and originality.” The idea of writing an original argument can seem daunting, especially if you’re writing on someone long dead like Aristotle or Zhuangzi, where so many commentators have come before you. If “original” just meant “unique” or “novel” then this would seem like a very high bar. How can I say something original that has not already been covered elsewhere? How could I even confirm such a thing?
In our course, an original argument just means that the origin of that argument is in you and your own thinking. That is, we don’t expect an utterly novel or unique argument, one that has never been written before — though if you have one, great! — but we do need to see evidence of your own engagement and thinking in developing that argument. This is part of why many of your philosophy courses will encourage you not to use outside sources: they want to see you grappling with arguments on your own, not just summarizing what other people have said.
For our purposes, then, an original argument is one that goes beyond what was covered in our readings, lectures, tutorials, etc., and which has an origin point in your own thinking and reasoning through the issues.
As an important reminder, an original idea does not have to be an idea you endorse or agree with. We are not grading your beliefs in this course, just your submissions for each assignment. You can generate an argument that you do not agree with, and it can still count as original.
How do I develop an “original” argument?
Ultimately, how you develop an original argument is up to you, since the origin is you! Some people like to brainstorm on paper, draw things out, talk with their friends, listen to podcasts, write pros and cons lists, flip a coin, or anything that helps them to figure out their position. I suggest asking your peers how they write their papers, or come to office hours to chat about what works for you! Meanwhile, if you have been taking conversational reading notes, then you probably already have an idea of what you believe and the starting point for an argument.
My main recommendation is just that you spend some time away from your course materials, and avoid jumping immediately to looking things up online. The goal is to focus on your own thoughts as a starting point for your arguments. Here are some things you can try:
- Without looking at your notes or course materials, write down everything that comes to mind when you reflect on the assignment prompt. Everything. Just jot it down and get it out. Then, step away for an hour or a day, and then do this again, trying to add more. You can write this as a list, as a mind map, or whatever works for you; I like to record myself talking instead of writing sometimes, whether to myself or to a friend. That’s the whole recommendation: sometimes just thinking through the topic and writing it all out gives students an idea of what they can add to the conversation.
- Another strategy is to run through your “notes purge”, and/or your other course notes and readings, and just make a note of what you think you agree or disagree with. For each main point or paragraph, just scribble a quick checkmark or a cross, going with your gut. You can write down your impressions in more detail, but the main goal is to give you a quick pass of your intuitions. You can review those marks and ask yourself questions like: Where any of those marks surprising? Do they show a particular pattern or even tension in your gut feelings? Is there one thing you disagree or agree with very strongly?
- Set a timer, say for 30 minutes, and write down every possible position someone could take on the issue. Next, pick the two or three most compelling or interesting positions and write a pros and cons list for each of them. Now, look through those lists and find the one or two reasons that are most convincing on their own. How could you use those reasons to develop a fuller argument for a position?
What if I agree with the authors?
It can seem like a struggle to write an “original” argument in the above sense when you agree with what an author has already said, and it would seem unfair that your argument is less original just because of our choices in assigned content or because you agree with someone. Because “original” is not “unique” in this course, this is okay! You can demonstrate how you yourself came to that same argument or conclusion as the reading, and then focus on demonstrating to the reader how your own account differs from or builds beyond what the author has already said. The question then becomes, how do I demonstrate that my argument is original?
Sometimes, when people agree with an Author A, their argument becomes circular. They write something like “I agree with the argument by Author A, because I agree with the argument that Author A gives.” This is not very original even in our sense, and it also is not going to be convincing to a reader. If they don’t already agree with Author A, why should they agree with you, since all your reasons are Author A’s reasons? This sounds like the reader should agree with Author A because Author A’s arguments are agreeable, but we should ideally show why those arguments are agreeable. Here is where we can provide our own original take: What could we say to further convince our reader that the premises Author A gives us are correct or convincing? What did Author A not yet say that we can add?
Imagine our audience already understands Author A’s arguments, but still doesn’t agree with them. What could we add to make this more convincing? Here is where we can make our own original contributions clear.
Here is a sample “agreement alphabet” just to get you started. You are not limited to these.
- Adding alternatives: Can I think of alternative ways to support the authors’ premises? Is there a further conclusion we can derive from the argument that the author stopped short of? Is there another set of premises that can converge to the same conclusion?
- Bandage solutions: Are there any objections? How would we address these on their behalf? Can I write a better version of the argument that is already impervious to those objections? Is one of their premises based on outdated empirical information?
- Connecting further: What are my own further interests as they relate to this topic and argument? How might those interests offer alternatives or further strengths? Can I find connections between their argument and other readings or debates from the course?
- Demonstrating applications: Are there any recent news cases etc? Was the author’s theoretical argument able to be applied to a more practical context and demonstrated as correct? Does the argument apply to a different set of cases or issues?
- Expanding support: Think of the common improv rules: “Yes and.” If I agree with them, how might I provide further support? What premises seem to be missing from their arguments, or which premises seem to be presumed without further support? How do I expand on their reasoning or conclusions further?
How else can I demonstrate my argument is original? Sample scripts:
Beyond creating an original argument, we also want our readers and graders to recognize it as original (particularly if they’re asking for originality in the instructions or rubric!). The above section offers some examples, but an unfamiliar reader might still find it difficult to determine which parts of your writing are summarizing someone else’s view, and which are your own ideas. Otherwise, a reader might think you are simply repeating or even misrepresenting what an author said!
The most direct way to demonstrate you are going beyond a reading is to tell your reader you are going beyond the reading. You can “signpost” your transitions and demonstrate ownership of your ideas and additions. Consider the following sample scripts:
- “Having summarized Author A’s position, this section now turns to modifying their account.”
- “While Author A focuses on Context C, I argue their view also applies to Context D.”
- “In the absence of further support, this premise may seem unconvincing. However, I offer a further example.”
- “Author A concludes with point P. However, we can take their argument further to argue for point Q.”
- “My position differs from Author A’s view, insofar as I argue that P.”
- “Author A’s position is open to objection O. In this section, I argue that this objection is not insurmountable for Author A, and we should accept their conclusion.”
Each of these is a short way of explicitly telling our reader what our contribution is, and signals that contribution separately from the reading we are agreeing with.
Going a step further:
The above all applies to this course. In some more advanced courses, you might be expected to demonstrate that your argument is relatively original in the sense of more unique. This is part of what a graduate thesis aims to do, for example: add something new to an existing conversation. In those cases, it won’t be enough to compare your position to the assigned readings in a course, you will also want to do more proactive research to identify if other people have similar contributions to your own. For that, you’ll need a little more training on how to do research than we can offer here, and even in those cases, it’s rarely expected that your contributions are absolutely novel, standout positions. All of that is beyond the scope of our course, but you’re welcome to talk further in office hours.
C Dalrymple-Fraser 