Position Papers

Table of Contents

Position Papers

Page 64

    A position paper states a claim and presents reasons why this claim is justified. The justification of the claim depends on the use of reliable evidence and careful reasoning. Letters to the editor are often position papers, as are judicial opinions and editorials. But position papers can be informal; a letter you might write to your parents in order to convince them to buy you a car could be an example of a position paper. Purpose
    A position paper addresses an issue, a single point in question or matter in dispute. This might be an issue of fact, a dispute about values, or a question of policy. Generally, the purpose of a position paper is to present reasons that will change another person's mind about that issue. Thus, its purpose is to persuade with good reasons.
Structure
    Position papers can take many different forms, depending on the audience and the issue, and the kinds of reasons used to support a position. But generally, a good position paper will begin with a paragraph that clearly states the issue to be addressed and the position to be defended. It will end with a paragraph that clearly draws the conclusion and summarizes the major reasons that support it. The main portion of the paper "argues the case," that is, presents the reasons in support of the position. Beyond this, the form a position paper takes will vary.

    The following is an outline of one form a position paper might take.

Page 65

THE TITLE OF THE PAPER IS A QUESTION THAT STATES THE ISSUE
I. CLAIM: The claim is the most important pan of the argument It is a sentence that is offered for discussion and/or consideration. It is the claim that xou will defend

II. DEFINITIONS: All of the ambiguous words used in a claim must be fund understood before you can proceed with the rest of the argument. The definitions should stipulate what YOU will take key words to mean.

III. COUNTERCLAIM: State the counterclaim In order to hare a logical and fair argument. you must show that sou understand the counterclaim. The counterclaim is a statement of the view opposite to the view you win defend.

A. Present the strongest reason in support of the counterclaim.
B. Present a second reason in support of the counterclaim.
IV ARGUMENT: This section presents your argument (or reasons) in support of your claim. The section has a number of pans.
A. Begin your argument with a restatement of your claim.
B. Respond to the reasons given in support of the counterclaim (above). shop ing how they do not support the counterclaim.
C. Present the strongest reason in support of your claim.
D. Present a second reason in support of your claim.
V. CONCLUSION: In this section, you summarize your argument in support of the claim and restate the claim. No new information should be in this section. Criteria of Evaluation
In assessing the quality of a position paper, consider these questions:

l . Is the argument in support of a single claim?
2. It is supported by reasons that are:
a. true?
b. to the point?
3. Are the reasons suited to its audience and the purpose?
4. Are the ideas clearly expressed?
5. Are important points missing?
6. Does the evidence really support the claim?
7. Are the pans arranged in a coherent and logical sequence?
8. Are the inferences clearly labeled?

Page 66

Example
The following is an example of the outline of a position paper written by a student, following the outline provided above.
SHOULD RELATIVELY AFFLUENT PEOPLE HELP THE POOR ?
I. Claim:

People who are relatively affluent should give a certain fair percentage of their earnings to help reduce absolute poverty on a global level.

II. Definitions:

Relatively Afluent: rich or wealthy.
Fair percentage: a small helpful percentage of earnings, such as ten percent (Peter Singer)

Absolute poverty: A condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy that it is beneath any reasonable definition of human decency (Robert McNamara).

III. The counterclaim: Wealthy people should not have to help those who are needier unless they choose to do so.

A. The strongest support for this claim is that by helping the poor, wealthier people would be increasing the world's population by contributing to the increased survival rates of those who would otherwise have a relatively low life expectancy, thus increasing the rate at which natural resources are consumed and environmental problems will arise.
B. Another reason supporting the counterclaim is that just because affluent people have a relatively higher income than others, does not make them morally responsible for those who are not.

Page 67

IV. Argument:

A. People who are relatively affluent should give a fair percentage of their earnings to help reduce absolute poverty on a global level.
B. It is not the case that helping the poor would necessarily increase population and thus deepen the environmental cnsis.

1.Monetary aid could bring medical supplies andfood, but it could also bnng with it contraceptive devices so that people in absolute poverty, who would have begun to see increased life spans, could decrease their birth rates.
2. Helping to reduce absolute poverty would also bnng about more people who would be in a position, economically, socially, and medically, to contnbute to cleaning up environmental problems and helping solve them.

3. People are resources too and to allow them to live in absolute poverty is to spoil and deplete that resource.

C. Animals, which are an important resource and part of life in most parts of the world, are often in more favorable and desirable surroundings than those of places struck by absolute poverty. Therefore people should be treated with more respect and consideration by being given the chance to live in better surroundings than those afforded to animal resources.
D. Killing another human being is morally wrong. Would it not then also be morally wrong to allow someone to die, knowing that they are in surroundings so squalid that they contribute to death ? By not acting in favor of eliminating those harmful surroundings, a person would be a contributor to the problems of those people, by simply not acang at all. Therefore, it should be a moral responsibility of those with relative affluence to care for those in absolute poverty.

V. In conclusion, affluent people should give a certain percentage of their wealth to help do away with the absolute poverty in the world because people are not only living beings who should not be allowed to live in such squalor, but also because they are an important resource which should not be allowed to waste away.
Copyright Brian Figur. Reprinted with permission, with revisions.

If one were to write a position paper following this outline, it might look something like this:

Page 68

SHOULD RELATIVELY AFFLUENT PEOPLE HELP THE POOR?
    As the world approaches the end of the twentieth century, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. While some people have more money than it is possible to spend in a lifetime, no matter how lavishly they might make purchases, others are not able to provide even for their most basic needs. On all the continents of the world, people starve to death for lack offood, freeze to death for lack of shelter, die of diseases that could be prevented The situation raises the issue of whether the affluent people of the world have a moral obligation to help the poor. I shall argue that people who are relatively affluent should give a certain fair percentage of their earnings to help reduce absolute poverty on a global scale.
    My claim is that those who are relatively affluent, that is, people who would normally be defined as rich or wealthy in the context of a given society, have an obligation to give up a small but helpful percentage of their earnings; Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, suggests ten percent The money would be used to alleviate absolute poverty, a condition that Robert McNamara, the former president of the World Bank, defines as "characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant morality and low life expectancy that is beneath any reasonable definition of human decency. "

Many people argue that wealthy people should not have to help those who are needier than they, unless they choose to do so. The strongest argument for this claim is articulated by Garrett Hardin, an ecologist from the University of Southern California. He points to the harmful results of helping people, claiming that by contributing to the increased survival rates of those who would otherwise have a relatively low life expectancy, wealthier people would increase the world's population and thus increase the rate at which natural resources are consumed and environmental problem arise. Although starvation is an evil, Hardin says, helping the poor would create an even greater evil--increased numbers of starving people and fewer resources to help them. Others argue that just because affluent people have a relatively higher income than others, it does not follow that they are morally responsible for those who do not.

    I believe, in contrast, that people do have a moral obligation to help the desperately poor. For several reasons, it is not the case that helping the poor would necessarily increase population and thus increase environmental degradation. First, while monetary aid could bring medical supplies and food and thus increase population, it could also bring contraceptive devices and increased education about population control. And so, helping the poor could actually decrease the rate of population growth and, in the end, save environmental resources. Secondly, helping to reduce absolute poverty would also bring about more people who would be in a positioneconomically, socially, and medically--to contribute to cleaning up environmental problems and helping solve overpopulation problems. Finally, from a purely practical point of view, it is important to note that people are an economic resource at least as important asfirewood and fertile soil, and to allow people to sicken and die is to spoil and waste that resource.

Page 69

    The obligation to help the poor is, to a certain extent, simply a matter of human rights. We believe that our pets have a right to decent treatment-enough food to live, shelter from the cold, medical care when they are hurt or ill, and affluent people in America spend large amounts of income to provide for these basic needs for animals. If animals have these rights, then surely humans have at least the same basic rights. People should be treated with more respect and consideration than animals, by being given the chance to live in better surroundings than those afforded to animals.
    However, the primary reason why the affluent have an obligation to help the poor has to do with the moral principle that killing another human being is wrong. If it is wrong to kill another person, then it is also morally wrong to allow someone to die, when you know they are going to die otherwise, and when it is within your means to save their lives at relatively little cost to yourself By not acting to reduce the harmful, lethal effects of poverty on the world's poor, affluent people are violating a primary moral principle. Therefore, it is a moral responsibility of the rich to help the poor.

    In conclusion, affluent people should give a certain percentage of their wealth to help do away with absolute poverty in the world, because people are not only living beings who have a right to decent lives, but because it is wrong to allow people to die when helping them live is well within your means.

Kathleen Moore, following outline by Brian Figur.

Page 71: Case Studies

copyright 1997 by Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University. Reprinted with permission.