Example for an Essay

The following is a good example of an essay that a student wrote. You find my comments in the text. I hope it helps you to identify my criteria for evaluating a text more clearly.

It occurs that our current ideas of punishment may be related to a system of morality that is not based on justice, but that is rooted in a corrupt feeling of resentment. Nietzsche investigates through his essay, “On the Genealogy of Morality,” this question with regard to slaves’ morality, which may be the historical root of our possibly corrupted conception of justice and punishment.

[This is a first introduction to the introduction. It summarizes the main problem and its relation to Nietzsche. The specific form of the essay will be represented in the next paragraph]

To reconstruct this, I will, first, demonstrate how Nietzsche introduces slaves’ and masters’ morality. He defines these two mindsets through analysis of the priests and by providing the metaphor of the lamb and the bird of prey. [you, the other students, might have different points that you present as essential] Second, I will reconstruct Nietzsche’s relation of punishment to slaves’ and masters’ morality. Third, from Nietzsche’s work, we will analyze the place of punishment in our society and how it is that it might contradict our ideas on justice. Finally, this leads to my proposed alternative solution of gradually weaning our society off the idea of resentment based punishment, but rather towards reasonable compensation. The compensation would provide service to the individual who the crime was committed against.  [In the introduction, the author formulates a problem and relates it to the reconstruction of Nietzsche, then the author summarizes all the steps that are undertaken in the following essay. It is specific enough, but not too specific] 

In the first essay Nietzsche analyzes the development of the two moral codes of masters’ morality and slaves’ morality. The master mindset is accredited to conquerors; these people are characterized by assuming their power and authority as superior and are naturally “good.” The slave mindset is attached to poverty as well as resentment of those who rule over them. The slaves are labeled as “bad” by the masters (Nietzsche 3-4), which does not include a moral evaluation. With regard to this natural state, Nietzsche explains the emergence of slaves’ morality and its recent success. [Please note that the author makes concrete references to the original text of Nietzsche. S/he actually reconstructs what the original text says and it does not only take my words from class.]

In order to demonstrate this, Nietzsche connects slaves’ morality to the priests, saying that they dangerously reversed the roles, building resentment. Nietzsche refers to this change as “more dangerous, not just because of medicaments and healing arts, but pride, revenge, acumen…resentment” (Nietzsche 7). These priests denounced the masters’ power, calling it sinful. This means they apply a moral term and thus introduce the idea of evil. They then titled self-denial and living a life in poverty as the new good. This mindset focuses on the evils of everyone else, thus motivates the domination of these evil individuals who are the masters. Therefore, the priests reverse the labels of good and bad in a way that enhances resentment. The bad becomes the new good, and the good becomes evil. [This all summarizes the revaluation of values very well and makes direct reference to paragraph 7. You will need such concrete references and reconstructions]

Nietzsche uses the metaphor of a bird of prey and a lamb to further explain this phenomenon. Nietzsche says that if the lambs could talk they would say that “These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like a lamb is good, isn’t he?” (Nietzsche 13). Since the lambs do not refrain from killing, however, Nietzsche says that these judgments are meaningless as the lambs cannot kill because they have no other option. Thus, Nietzsche says that it is wrong for the masters not to show their strength as such and just as absurd to call the slaves noble for not showing strength that they do not have.  Consequently, this shows that the priests are not actually noble for they do not have the ability to be real masters, and since they do not have this capability to be strong, they cannot be truly noble. This reconstruction is maybe not necessary. Slaves’ morality can be explained briefly. It is on the limit of saying too much. Still it is a very good reconstruction though.

This leads into punishment. For the masters, a natural right is felt among them to take violence and punishment against the slaves. Nietzsche explains that “throughout the greater part of human history punishment was not imposed because one held the wrong doer responsible for his deed, thus not on the presupposition that only the guilty one should be punished; rather, as parents still punish their children, from anger at some harm or injury, vented on the one who caused it” (Nietzsche 4). The quote is a bit too long In simple words [this phrasing embeds the quote into the essay of the student], masters perform punishment because of the pleasure they receive from the enjoyment of violation and because they do have power. The masters have no feelings of revenge toward those who commit infractions against the morals of masters, as they do not punish because one might deserve it. Rather, the punishment is linked to enjoyment.

Also, punishment is not considered necessary for master. Nietzsche says that “such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine “love of one’s enemies” is possible – supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies” (Nietzsche 10). Accordingly, for Nietzsche, punishment is not considered a matter of morals for the masters, but rather one of enjoyment that is not necessary for the masters.

Justifications for punishment do not come from the masters, but instead came from the morality of the slave. This is contrasting well how punishment is used in different ways. As previously stated, slave morality is linked to resentment or ressentiment. Since slaves’ morality is linked to this concept, it means that our morality is based upon resentment. Those who possess slave morality are without an outlet for their misery. They do not have power like the masters and, therefore, are forced to experience their weaknesses repeatedly, thus resentment builds. Eventually, the slaves become a whole new level of restless, and they unleash their built-up resentment onto the masters. The slave revolt, propelled by ‘ressentiment’, alters punishment into something that is used to promote evilness (Nietzsche 11). This is very well summarized. Again it is reconstructing the text.

            Now that we have defined slaves’ and masters’ morality in terms of punishment, I may provide my own alternative solution to punishment; I suggest that we gradually replace punishment with compensation for the victim. I understand that compensation may turn into a form of slaves’ morality, so I also propose a system in which to keep the criminal from becoming a slave to the victim. (This part here is unclear and needs to be reconstructed beforehand. Why can the idea of compensation be infected by slaves’ morality?) This compensation would not consist of vengeance, but rather of service to provide for the thing that has been taken from the victim. For example, if a criminal stole a car, the criminal would have to work in order to pay back the victim for the price of the car. Or, if a criminal physically hurts another person, the criminal would be expected to work to pay for the medical bills and loss of pay from being unable to work. This sounds easy in theory, but there are many other aspects in which it may become complicated. There must also be a point established at which the wrongdoer can no longer be a part of society, this would be after it is clear they are a threat to the wellbeing of society. If the criminal is unable to fully repay the victim, there must be a certain time established for which the criminal must devote their paychecks the victim to avoid them becoming slaves to their mistakes. Changing the entire basis of the way society views and believes that criminals and victims should be treated is not an easy thing to do. I see this as an excellent suggestion, but I also understand how difficult it would be to change the mindsets of so many people who are stuck wanting revenge. For this reason, it must take place gradually. The arguments are well developed. However, you need some argument why the compensation and revenge issues might be related to slaves’ morality.

            In conclusion, Nietzsche investigates through his essay, “On the Genealogy of Morality,” how slave morality could be the root of our conception of justice and punishments. Nietzsche defines slaves’ and masters’ morality through an analysis of the priests as well as by providing the metaphor of the lamb and the bird of prey. Then, Nietzsche relates the philosophy of punishment to slave and masters’ moralities, saying our system is based on resentment not justice. Through these contradictions in our punishment system, I propose alternative solution of working towards reasonable compensation rather than revenge based punishment. 

Final Exam Questions

Please post your questions in the comment section.

best
Norman Schultz

1. Reconstruct Nietzsche's theory of the struggle between master's and slave's morality and explain this with regard to current examples from our current time.

2. Discuss Foucault's idea of discipline and how it replaces older practices of punishment. Find a current example and explain.

3. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the problem of prisons in our society.

4. Explain Foucault's theory of prisons and discuss the status of prisons in our society.

5. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the idea of punishment in our current society.

More difficult

Compare Nietzsche's and Foucault's concept of soul and evaluate their status in current societies.

Compare Nietzsche's master's morality after the revaluation of values with Plato's concept of Justice.

I think, I am, I exist - Another writing prompt.

After the deconstruction of the basic foundations (the senses, imagination, and understanding), Descartes makes an argument for the only foundation of sciences: The I-Think.

The argument is structured as a reduction ad absurdum. This means that he starts with an assumption that will lead to a contradiction later, and thus disproves the original assumption.

Descartes starts with the assumption: "I am is a deception." This means that even "I exist" is something that might be a deception by an evil demon.

A deception, however, includes that somebody must be deceived. Even an evil demon is not deceiving nobody. If we take this into account it means that the evil demon deceives somebody of being himself.

This, however, is a contradiction, since the one who is deceived cannot be deceived of being the one who is deceived. If this is, therefore, a contradiction the original assumption must be false and its opposite must be true.

The opposite is: I am not a deception.

From this follows that even the strongest doubt cannot destroy the belief that I am, and thus I am, is an indubitable assumption. This "I am" is in the mode of thinking, since it tries to deny itself by virtue of thoughts. From this follows: I think, I exist.

6 Minutes, 1 minute revised

Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)

1.  Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception

2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence

Argument for Existence

2nd Meditation (Descartes), Specific Argument of Existence, A-Part

Result of 1st Meditation: Knowledge that nothing is certain?

No, because at least: I am I

Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)

1.  Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception

2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence

Descartes, 10 Minute Prompt

Explain what is the content and the method of the Descartesian deconstruction, and explain the three steps of his deconstruction.

The goal of Descartes' Meditation is to give a new foundation to science, because if the foundation is unstable the house of sciences might be in danger. For this goal he uses the method of methodological doubt, this means that he rejects something as false if it has we have the slightest doubt about its truth. At the same time, he wants to find  the foundation as efficiently as possible so that he does not criticize everything. Instead, he systematically attacks the most basic foundations.

The deconstruction follows three steps:

1) He attacks the senses because they seem to be most important for research. The senses, however, just give us knowledge from induction that means they only give us probably knowledge about objects. Since they, however, have deceived us already they cannot be trusted.

Transition: Even though the senses have deceived us, Descartes tries to argue that the images in our head might have been perceived by a transformation. The senses transform a presupposed real object outside of us so that we have an image in our head. If we understand this mechanism, we might be able to infer back to the real object. This is called a metaphysical realism.

2) Descartes rejects also this position, because our images might not have been caused by something outside, but they are the results of our imagination as if we only dream them. So he also rejects this foundation.

Transition to 3: Even though we could be dreaming, dreams, however, must be built on elements. We do not invent all of our dreams. So that these elements could be assumed to be real.

3) Descartes rejects this idea, because these elements could have been put by an evil demon into our mind. So we know them by convention and don't know whether they are really true. Because he has the slightest doubt he also rejects them as a foundation.

8 Minutes.

The Evil-Demon-Argument

Transitioning argument from the senses, and imagination to understanding:

After having demonstrated that we can neither trust the senses, nor our images as representations of real objects, Descartes tries to find another ground for sciences, namely understanding (rationality). So even though we might be trapped in a dream, dreams are composed of elements and these elements are simple. So we can, for example, invent, different objects that are combinations of simple elements, but can we also invent elements?

For example, objects have colors, but can you invent a new color in a dream? Can you invent new shapes?

The following picture resembles an absurd labyrinth, but despite its absurdity it uses elements, in order to be represented in our mind.



So Descartes concludes that the simple elements might qualify as foundations for sciences, but he can also find doubt about this.

The Evil-Demon

So we can believe in the simple elements of understanding. These elements include arithmetic sentences like 2+2=4, geometrical shapes, or even the method of deduction. These statements are evident, but this is not necessarily an indicator that they are true.

The simple task of teaching a child of let us say 4 years the sentence 2+2=4 is much more difficult then we expect. Usually children can count until 4, but they cannot understand what it means to build a some. Numbers are not simple truths, but actually presuppose a complex set of different skills. Because we have trained this sentence for thousands of times, since our early school days, the sentence occurs as evident to us. But could it be that the school has deceived us into believing such simple sentences, so that we believe they are without really knowing this?

The following picture represents this problem. 

So the question of Descartes is legitimate. It could be that an evil teacher, or an evil demon has put these truths in our mind. 

Since Descartes finds the slightest doubt, he dismisses the belief in understanding as a whole.

Further Sources:

• Stories of different demons and paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment)
• It is always good to be informed on Realism, a central concept of our time http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/#2
• The wikipedia page gives background information on the evil demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon