Improving Academic Writing

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

nouns should be fought like the devil, especially by philosophers. This is among the reasons for favoring the Anglo-Saxon. Because we so often need abstract terms (which typically come from Latin or Greek), we should avoid them where we can. This is from a reputable journal: A more abstract exploration of the formulations’ implications for each other, however, will reveal that each is unacceptable. Of five consecutive words, three end in ‘ation’; it looks terrible, and is dreary to read. Compare: If we explore more abstractly what each formulation implies for the others, we see that none is acceptable. Not great, but it is better. Before submitting anything for publication, Bennett also asks the software to reveal every instance of ‘ation’, ‘ness’, ‘ism’, ‘ility’ and their plurals—and asks of each, ‘Is this earning its keep?’ Often the answer is ‘No.’ Another published example: None of these positions would make the distributive hybrid vulnerable to the objection to utilitarianism dealing with distributive justice. For that objection, as I have said, arises ultimately in response to the utilitarian conception of the overall good, which ranks states of affairs according to the amount of total satisfaction they contain. And the distributive hybrid’s rejection of that conception of the overall good is unequivocal. Its institutional principles, whatever they may be, rely on the distributive principle for ranking overall states of affairs. Thus none of the possible institutional principles would require that some people’s life prospects be sacrificed in order to increase the non-essential satisfactions of other people whenever that would serve to maximize total aggregate satisfaction. For they all reject the conception of the overall good which leads utilitarianism to require just that. [137 words]