Thesis Development: Advisor Meeting #2

I met with my advisor after spending the last four months working on the first draft of the paper. And while there’s still plenty of work to do, getting the V1 of the paper together was a herculean task. There were plenty of days where I would spend two hours on the paper only to create a single paragraph. Academic writing isn’t easy at the Master’s Degree level. Yes, it takes time to do the reading and cite sources, but what I found truly time consuming was this persistent idea that what I was writing should be a novel contribution to the larger scholarship. It turns out that creating something entirely new is entirely difficult. I would write something, think about it, question myself as to whether what I wrote was a true instantiation of my idea, and then rewrite it again. This process was interspersed with episodes of self-doubt as to whether the idea was even mine, or if it was the seed of some text that procrastinatingly germinated in my mind over the last two years. Fortunately, the many early mornings and weekends devoted to this pursuit paid off, culminating into the V1 version of the paper. Below are the main themes from the meeting, some of which are invaluable lessons that extend beyond the paper itself.

Theme #1: Making clear that ethics exists in formats beyond the traditional canon of philosophy

There’s a section in the paper where I talk about the risk of excluding the wisdom of cultural figures like Oscar Wilde for more academically palatable figures such as Aristotle. The point is more clever than insightful, but one thing my advisor helped me to understand was how we have to be explicit about the choices we make in our influences. Yes, there are great examples of acting “ethically” all around us, so why do we choose the examples that we use to inform our own decisions? There may not be a correct answer to that, but being transparent about those decisions and creating the argument for using them is an important takeaway.

Take, for instance, the writings of Aristotle and Oscar Wilde, both of whom wrote about the human condition and morality. Aristotle’s ideas on morality, specifically regarding Virtue Ethics, are extensive and renowned. Wilde’s less so, but perhaps no less poignant. As Wilde once said, “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people we dislike.” While the teachings of Aristotle may be considered more socially palatable or academically established than the teachings of Oscar Wilde, there is still poignancy to Wilde’s observations. Still, there is a need to make deliberate choices on which ideologies to include or exclude, which could result in exclusionary thinking.

Theme #2: Ensure that the amount of writing for any one section is proportionate to the larger argument

This is one of those life lessons that extends beyond the paper. The idea is that we often want to be thorough in our thinking and explanations. Especially after hours of extensive reading and research, it’s only natural to try to capture everything you’ve learned in an attempt to get some self-credit for all the work. In my paper, I discuss the risks of AI and the consequences of making poor decisions. I wrote extensively on this topic to demonstrate that these risks were non-theoretical; that they posed real dangers to real people. However, my advisor helped me see that, despite the considerable effort that went into researching the topic, the point that needs to be made should not be disproportionate to the overall argument. To use a gardening analogy, it’s the equivalent of creating a sucker-branch, a branch that grows independently of the overall structure of the tree, ultimately robbing it of resources. Sure, it may seem helpful in some way, but inevitably has to be pruned.

Theme #3: There is a risk of oversimplifying topics, even massive and daunting ones like normative ethical theory

Normative ethical theory is a topic that every student at Edinburgh spends a considerable amount of time reading, thinking, and writing about. Normative ethical theory underpins many cultural beliefs about right and wrong, with theories like Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics representing centuries of philosophical development that no single lifetime can fully master. My original intention was to make these concepts more accessible for everyday ethical decision-making. However, I made the mistake of over-reducing complex ideas and using these simplified versions as proxies for the original theories. For example, while it’s easier to understand utilitarianism as simply being “concerned with outcomes,” this oversimplification cheapens the underlying philosophy. Instead of using “outcomes” as a proxy for utilitarianism, it’s better to characterize simplified approaches as derivatives of the original theory. This subtle difference honors the philosophical lineage while maintaining accessibility, demonstrating the connection between practical application and the work of great thinkers who came before.