I.

What I'm Looking For: In General

Response papers in my courses should do just one thing: they should argue for or against a thesis
found in the reading. I want you to identify an explicit thesis stated in the reading, and give
reasons for or against it. A thesis is a single claim, answering a question on which there is
controversy. For example, many 19th-century socialists, like Thomas Hodgskin, Saint-Simon,
Fourier, or Robert Owen--as well as non-socialists, like Thomas Malthus--held that the only truly
productive form of labor is labor that produces useful physical objects. All other forms of labor,
they held, are not genuinely productive. So housework, legal services, religious services, and the
like are, according to this thesis, unproductive labor. That is a definite thesis, because it
takes an explicit stand on a controverted question: what forms of labor are genuinely
productive? So if in our readings you happen to find a statement of that thesis, it is a
good candidate for a thesis to argue for or against.

Once you have found a definite and controversial thesis in the reading, I want you to do one
thing: argue for or against it. If you argue for it, then you have to give good reasons for accepting
the thesis, and these reasons should not be those found in the reading: they have to be different
reasons that you get from some other source. If instead you want to argue against the thesis, then
you have to state and defend an alternative thesis.

So, for example, if you decide to argue for the 19th-century socialists' productive-labor thesis,
then you need some other reason than their own rationale, which was that the only genuinely
productive form of labor is that which performs the central economic activity, and that the
central economic activity is the production of physical commodities, because the true goal of
all economic activity is to provide us with an abundance of material goods. But if you are going
to argue for their thesis, you need to construct some other rationale for it. If instead you are going
to argue against their thesis, then you have to defend an alternative thesis: something like "some
forms of labor are truly productive even though they don't produce useful physical objects" or
"housework is a truly productive form of labor even though it produces no useful physical
objects."

Notice that what I am looking for is an argument or rationale for or against the thesis. I want you
to present plausible and uncontroversial premises, and then to explain why, if those premises are
true, then we can reliably infer that the thesis is either true or false. So your argument should
have three main parts: uncontroversial premises, a conclusion that the thesis is either true or
false, and an explanation of why the premises allow us to reliably infer the conclusion. For
example, suppose you want to argue that there are genuinely productive forms of labor besides
producing physical commodities. You could argue this thesis as follows. One main goal of
economic activity is to satisfy people's desires. Any form of labor that achieves a main goal of
economic activity is genuinely productive labor. But some forms of labor besides producing
physical commodities satisfy desires: legal services is an example, because people often desire
legal services. So other forms of labor besides producing physical commodities are genuinely
productive labor. That is a decent argument: for it to count as a good one, it would have to
explain why we should think that, "Any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic
activity is genuinely productive labor." But it already has the form of a decent argument against
the socialists' productive-labor thesis. So a response paper giving basically this argument would
be heading into good-paper territory.

II. What I'm Looking For: Organizing It

So much on what I am looking for in general. Here's how I want you to organize it. The response
paper should be organized into two parts: a brief introduction, and the body of the paper giving
the argument.

The Introduction to the Response Paper

The introduction of any response paper you submit to me should do four things: state the thesis
the paper will argue for or against, say where it is found in the reading, tell me whether you'll
argue for or against it (and, if you'll argue against it, tell me what your alternative thesis is), and
give a one-sentence summary of your main reasons for either the text thesis or your alternative
thesis. A good introduction would look like this:

"In his Chapters on Socialism, John Stuart Mill considers the utopian-socialists' thesis that the
only genuinely productive form of labor is the production of physical commodities (p. 390). In
this paper, I shall argue, against this thesis, that other forms of labor are also genuinely
productive. My main reasons will be that one main goal of economic activity is to satisfy
people's desires, and that any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity is
genuinely productive labor."

That introduction tells me everything I want to know: what is the definite thesis found in the
reading that you'll argue for or against, where in the reading you find it--the page number is
sufficient, because I know which book and edition you got it from--, that you're arguing against
the thesis, what your alternative thesis is, and a one-sentence summary of your main reasons
against the thesis. An introduction like that will get top marks.

Here, by contrast, is an introduction that does not tell me what I want to know:

"Since at least the time of Aristotle, philosophers have debated which forms of labor count as
genuinely productive, and why. This question was especially important for the 19th-century
socialists. For they wished to argue that the capitalism of their day unjustly rewarded
unproductive labor and failed to sufficiently reward genuinely productive labor. So they needed a
plausible criterion for productive labor, one which would give them the results they sought.
However, their quest for a criterion presupposes that we can clearly distinguish between
productive and unproductive labor. In this paper, I want to challenge this presupposition. I shall
argue that all forms of labor are genuinely productive, on the grounds that all labor is exertion
aimed at attaining some end, and that all such exertion is genuinely productive."

This introduction is admirable in many ways. It proceeds crisply to a

definite argument. It bespeaks a good and accurate knowledge of the history of thought about
productive labor. It displays a good knowledge of why the 19th-century socialists sought a
criterion to distinguish productive from unproductive labor. It reveals a firm grasp of important
theoretical concepts, like distinctions, presuppositions, and criteria. And it bespeaks a command
of how to state a definite thesis and summarize how you will argue for it. But it does not do what
I want response papers to do: it does not explicitly state and then summarize how it will argue for
or against a definite thesis found in the reading. Instead, it proposes to challenge a presupposition
of a theory or set of theses found in the reading. So I would be reluctant to give this introduction
top marks.

Contrast that with this introduction:

"Since at least the time of Aristotle, philosophers have debated which forms of labor count as
genuinely productive, and why. The 19th-century socialists are an example. They decried the
injustices of capitalism in their time, and for them productive labor was very important. They
took the side of the working class, and set themselves against the capitalists and the aristocrats.
However, there is much to be said for capitalism's way of conceiving of productive labor, in
which any labor is productive if somebody pays someone else for it."

This introduction is much less admirable. While each of its sentences displays a good knowledge
of its particular subject, and while each sentence reveals a good command of the relevant
concepts, the sentences do not hang together well. Nor do they do what I want an introduction to
do. First, this introduction doesn't make clear what thesis it will deal with. The thesis could be
what the introduction calls capitalism's way of conceiving of productive labor. But then again, it
could be something else. Second, the introduction doesn't tell us where any of the possible theses
it covers are to be found in the reading. Third, it doesn't tell us what it will argue for or against.
And fourth, it of course doesn't summarize how it will argue that claim.

So of these three examples, the easiest way to a good paper is to emulate the first and avoid the
third. Pursue the second at your own risk!

The Body of the Response Paper

As we saw, the introduction to your response paper should be brisk.

It should get down to business fast. You want to have as much
space as possible to give the argument for your claim--that either
the thesis you're considering is true, or that there is an alternative
thesis that is nearer the truth. The body of the paper should give
the full version of the argument you sketched at the end of the
introduction. It should explain how the reasons you mentioned, if
true, allow us to reliably infer your claim. Why, given your premises,
do we have good reason to accept your claim? What form this
should take depends on what your premises are. If their meaning is
clear and they seem uncontroversial, then you can spend your time
explaining why and how they support your claim. If their meaning is
not clear, then you will also need to state what they mean: you will
have to say something about definitions. If your premises seem
controversial, then you will have to justify them: you will have to
give us reasons for thinking the premises are true. Take, for
example, the argument sketched in the good introduction we
considered above. There, you would probably need to do all three
things. First, you would need to show why the claim--that some
labor is genuinely productive without being the production of
physical commodities--is reliably inferred from the premises.
Second, you would need to say something about the terms in this
premise: "That any form of labor that achieves a main goal of
economic activity is genuinely productive labor." You would need to
say something about what is meant by "a main goal of economic
activity" and "genuinely productive labor." Third, you would need to
say something about why we should accept that premise. Why is
the nature of productive labor so influenced by the main goals of
economic activity? So the body of your paper might be organized
like this:

"What are the main goals of economic activity? I think it will be

agreed that one of them, at any rate, is the satisfaction of desires.
But if so, then it seems to follow that some labor is genuinely
productive without being the production of physical commodities.
For any form of labor that achieves a main goal of economic activity
is genuinely productive labor; and there are some forms of labor--
like legal services, for example---that satisfy desires, but are not
the production of physical commodities. By "a main goal of
economic activity," I mean "one of the prime objects that most
people have when they engage in activities aimed either at
production for use, or production for exchange." I take it that all
economic activity falls under one or other of those two heads. Given
this, we can see why it makes sense to say that all labor that
achieves such main goals is genuinely productive. For labor is
genuinely productive whenever it achieves a prime object people
have in engaging in production for use or exchange. The reason is
that such labor is doubly productive: on the one hand, it achieves
an important object people have, and on the other, it achieves that
object by engaging in production. So any labor that
achieves this object in this is genuinely productive. And since one of
the prime objects people have for laboring in this fashion is
satisfying desires, it follows that desire-satisfaction is a main goal of
economic activity. But there clearly are forms of labor besides
physical-commodity-production that achieve this goal. So some
labor is genuinely productive without being the production of
physical commodities."

That is all you need to do in the body of the response paper. You do
not need to, nor should you, consider objections to either your
argument or your thesis. You don't need any passages of the
"Somebody might say, against this premise, that..." variety. If you
have more words available, use them to justify any questionable
premises, or to clarify any still unclear terms. The deeper your
argument goes, the better. The response paper is not an
exercise in debate.

Notice that this argument works by appealing to more general ideas

and principles in order to defend its claim. It derives the specific
from the general. But you could also argue the claim in the opposite
direction: you could argue that the thesis you're challenging has
unacceptable consequences, and hence is false. An argument of this
form would go like this. "I shall argue that some labor is genuinely
productive without being the production of physical commodities, on
the ground that the contradictory thesis--that all genuinely
productive labor produces physical commodities--unacceptably
implies that housework is not genuinely productive. For there is no
labor more productive than the upkeep and care of a livable home."
To run this argument, you would want to say why the thesis must
imply that housework is not genuinely productive, and why there is
no labor more productive than the upkeep and care of a livable
home. (So, although here you are arguing against the thesis
from its alleged consequences, instead of from general principles
that entail it, you still have premises to justify. So again, the deeper
your argument, the better.)

What I'm Not Looking For in Organization

Multiple arguments! Just make one argument for your claim. I don't
want multiple independent arguments for it. Some students, for
example, might argue for the claim above as follows. "I shall argue
that some labor is genuinely productive without being the
production of physical commodities. I have two arguments for this
claim. One is that it unacceptably implies that housework is not
genuinely productive. The other is that one main goal of economic
activity is to satisfy people's desires, and that any form of labor that
achieves a main goal of economic activity is genuinely productive
labor." Although this is admirable in its ambition, it runs afoul of the
word limit to the response papers. If you make multiple
independent arguments for your claim, you won't have the space to
make any of them more than a shallow and superficial rationale. A
shallow rationale is not an interesting rationale--or at least, it's not
what I'm looking for in the response papers. I'm looking for non-
shallow rationales. Remember that, when engaged in theorizing, it
is always better to have one deep and powerful argument for a
claim than multiple shallow and weak arguments for it. (That
may or may not be true in debate, in courtroom argument, or in
other fora where the purpose is to persuade. But, in theorizing, the
goal is to make the deepest and most powerful arguments we can in
the space available.)

III. What I'm Not Looking For (But Is Well Worth Doing
Elsewhere)

That should give you a sense of what I am looking for in the

response papers. To understand it better, here are some things I
am not looking for, but are well worth doing elsewhere. Some of
your other teachers of political theory, ethics, legal theory, or
philosophy would probably be very pleased to receive response
papers that do these things.

Papers that Critique an Argument in the Reading

I'm not looking for papers that present and then critique an
argument made in the reading. Students sometimes submit papers
that say, for example, "The 19th-century socialists argued that the
only genuinely productive form of labor was the production of
physical commodities, and therefore that nobody should be
rewarded more highly than those who produced such commodities.
I shall try to show that this argument is a non sequitur: even if the
premise is true, the conclusion does not follow. For people should be
economically rewarded in proportion to what the free market will
pay for their efforts, and the free market is frequently willing to
reward other forms of labor more highly than the production of
physical commodities. So even if socialists are right about what
counts as genuinely productive labor, their theory of reward does
not follow." This critique of the socialists' argument is well worth
making. It is interesting to see how well a free-market theory of
reward refutes the socialists' argument for tying reward to physical
commodities. But while the ability to critique an argument is an
important skill, it is not the skill I am asking students to hone in
their response papers.

Or that Uncover and Challenge the Hidden or Implicit

Presuppositions of the Theory in the Reading

Nor am I looking for papers that bring to light hidden

presuppositions of the theory and then challenge the theory in light
of them. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example,
"The 19th-century socialists, in their critique of capitalism,
presuppose that economic activities founded on competition and the
pursuit of self-interest are morally tainted--they presuppose that
only economic activities founded on cooperation are morally
acceptable. I shall show how their critique presupposes these
things, and then challenge the presupposition. I shall claim, in other
words, that economic activities founded on competition and self-
interest can, under certain conditions, satisfy all plausible moral
criteria. For free economic activities that are founded on competition
but do not use force or fraud do two things. They satisfy the Golden
Rule, and they lead to better results than economic activities that
are unfree, or do use force, or do use fraud. So such competitive
free-market economic activities satisfy all plausible moral criteria,
and hence suffer no moral taint." That is an argument well worth
making. It is interesting to see whether the socialists do tacitly
presuppose that competition morally taints any economic activity.
And it is interesting to see why that presupposition is true or false.
Such an inquiry ventures into the critique of ideology, which is an
important enterprise for political philosophy. But uncovering and
challenging such hidden presuppositions is not the task set in my
response papers. It is undoubtedly important, but it is not the same
as arguing for or against a definite thesis stated in the reading.

Papers that Interpret the Theory or Ideas in the Reading

Nor again am I looking for papers that tell me the meaning of a

theory or doctrine or concept you find in the reading. Students
sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "I shall argue that
when the 19th-century socialists claim that all genuinely productive
labor is the production of physical commodities, they mean that it is
the production of physical commodities that, of all forms of labor, is
the one that produces what is most truly and genuinely needed."
Other students submit papers that say, for example, "I shall argue
that by "productive labor," the socialists mean "the type of labor
that most directly achieves the main goal of economic activity."
Those two theses are well worth arguing, especially against a rival
interpretation. But they are not the kind of theses I want to see
argued in response papers submitted for my courses.

Or Papers that Reconstruct the Theory in the Reading

Nor yet am I looking for papers that tell me what must be the
presuppositions that justify and unify in one coherent theory some
explicit theses stated in the reading, though the reading doesn't
explicitly say that these presuppositions are fundamental premises.
Neither am I looking for papers that boil the theory presented in the
reading down to such presuppositions. Students sometimes submit
papers that say, for example, "I shall argue that all the 19th-
century socialists' criticisms of capitalism, as presented in
Mill's Chapters on Socialism, all derive from two theses, though the
socialists as presented by Mill don't say that they do: that
capitalism is unwarrantedly founded on the pursuit of self-interest
and competition, and is also unwarrantedly founded on private
property." Such a reconstruction is well worth doing. It is interesting
to see whether all the socialists' criticisms of capitalism really do
flow from those two theses, and not others. But that is not the
assignment I'm setting in response papers for my courses.
Or that Summarize the Theory in the Reading

Neither am I looking for papers that tell me the main conclusions

and the main premises of the theory presented in the reading.
Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "The
19th-century socialists as presented by Mill in Chapters on
Socialism offered elaborate criticisms of the capitalism of their day.
I shall argue that in Mill's presentation, they make six main
criticisms: the capitalism of their day: needlessly breeds great
poverty, does not sufficiently connect that poverty to desert,
needlessly breeds great crime and vice, founds the economic
system on competition and selfish individualism, wrongly rewards
unproductive labor more than productive labor, and needlessly
breeds economic chaos." Summarizing is an important skill, but a
claim like this isn't worth arguing in a response paper. Anyone who
reads the Chapters can see immediately whether your thesis is
right. So save such summaries for subordinate parts of papers:
don't make them your paper's main claim.

Or Papers that Compare and Contrast the Theories Found in

Several Readings

Finally, I'm not looking for papers that specify the similarities and
differences among the theories presented in several different
readings. For example, students sometimes submit papers that say,
"The 19th century socialists had a theory of productive labor
according to which the only truly productive labor is the creation of
physical commodities. Neo-classical economics has a theory of
productive labor according to which labor is productive if it creates
something that satisfies somebody's preferences. In this paper, I
will compare and contrast the two theories and the arguments they
use to justify those claims, specifying where they agree and where
they disagree." Being able to accurately and completely specify all
the important points of similarity and difference between two
like theories is an important skill, which my courses devote time
to honing. But it's not a skill that the response papers aim
to improve.