Paper Grading Guidelines
Paper Assignment #2
Here are some things I noticed with some of the papers, in no particular order.
A good paper will have conformed to them.


1. Make sure that you are *very* careful about how you say what you do. For example, there are (at least) two interpretations of God in the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Job, which I've outlined at the bottom of this page. But notice that on neither of these views does God explicitly contradict himself; he only seemingly or apparently does so. You needed to show that you were clear about this distinction, if you brought it up at all.

2. Make sure to CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!! Both of the two interpretations of God that were discussed in class were suggested by David Reeve in lecture. So you needed to have cited him if you were going to talk about them. If you didn't cite, then your paper read as if you were the one who came up with the two views of God, which borders on a form of plagiarism.

3. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS!!!! If you made any kind of substantial claim without arguing for it, I marked you off. (See point 7 below.)

4. Any statement that begins "God by definition is..." needs support. Where is God defined as such? If it's in the text, cite it! If not, where did you get this?

5. The paper prompt asked you to consider a view of God where he was NOT a super-nazi. This means that you either had to talk about David Reeve's interpretation (i.e., God as the Non-Rewarder/Punisher), or you had to talk about a third interpretation which you needed to have exlained/defended.

6. If you made the distinction between morally good/right by human standards and morally good/right by God's standards, and if you thought they were different, then you needed to explain either (i) which one (if not both) of them was incorrect or (ii) how both could be right.

7. Make sure you don't say anything that is either (i) trivial or (ii) unsupported. If you say something trivial, then what's the point? You want to say something interesting, not something that both you and the reader already knew going into the paper. If you say something unsupported, then you might as well not say it at all. For what I am primarily interested in is why you say what you do. So give me your reasons for why you have the beliefs you do. If you can't figure out why you believe something, then you should question whether you believe it at all, and you certainly shouldn't talk about it in your paper. (See point 3 above.)

8. When writing a paper, you need to pretend that I have never been to lecture, and that I don't know what you are talking about. Take time to explain the views, and elaborate on them. Be clear and explicit. Remember, this is my only real way to find out what bits of the course material you really know and understand.

9. Stop using MSW thesaurus! Anything you can say with big words you can probably say much more clearly with small, simple words.

10. Your first paragraph should be doing some work. It should say something, or make a point, an argument, etc. It should not just say what you are going to say in more detail and more elaborately later on. So if it's not doing anything for you, take it out!

11. READ your sentences!!!! Do you understand what you are saying? Would someone who isn't you (and can't read your thoughts) know what you are saying? Each sentence should make some sense to someone who hasn't read the rest of your paper.

12. Don't be tempted by the following line of argument: "We cannot know or understand God's reasons for doing what he does (because he's infinitely smart and all, and we're not), so there's no point in even trying to discern why he does what he does (e.g., why he separates the righteous from the wicked, sending the first to heaven and the second to hell, etc.)."  While it may be true that God is much smarter than we are, this doesn't mean that it is futile to speculate about why he does what he does. For at the very least, we can consider possible reasons for his behavior. So long as there is some sort of story that would make God a good God, even if he really were to punish the wicked eternally, then this is enough. The story doesn't have to be a true one, but it would be one way to for us to see how a morally perfect being can do what God purportedly does. We have the power of imagination and the use of logic; surely these are tools enough to let us speculate and try to understand how a morally perfect being can do the things that the God (of the Gospel and the Book of Job) does.

13. NEVER use a dictionary to answer philosophical questions!!! You should only use a dictionary when you don't know the meaning of a word, not when you are trying to discover the metaphysical nature of someting--e.g.,what's good, evil, righteous, pious, beautiful, etc. If living the examined life simply involved looking things up in the O.E.D, I seriously doubt it would make life worth living.



Page Last Updated: Oct. 27, 2005
Back to Meg's Main Page
Back to Meg's Teaching Page