The flaw in my paper that Prof P mentioned as most important was a lack of credible secondary sources. I fixed this, at least partially, with a trip to the National Archives. When I got there, however, I found surprisingly little on my topic. Actually, there was a reasonable amount, but very little that I thought could be an important addition to the paper. However, I was able to track down the late Michael Malone's book, "Montana: A Tale of Two Centuries." This proved surprisingly helpful and gave me additional material for my topic, and forced (slight) modifications in some other sections.
Another critique was the lack of clarity regarding my idea of "good." The closest philosophy to my own (as yet, unfinished) is Objectivism, discovered by Ayn Rand. So few people share this philosopy, and so few (outside the philosophical world) even know about it. This meant that I couldn't work under the assumption that simply stating good actions, as defined by Objectivism, would suffice. Therefore, I added a paragraph that BRIEFLY explained Rand's theory.
Prof P also disputed my comparison of Clark to Jefferson and Washington. She thought that the lasting legacy left by TJ and GW created a vital distinction in comparing their "goodness." I left the comparison in there, however, because I believe it to be valid. I don't think that "longevity" is a trait that distinguishes one act's goodness from another. An action is an action and we judge it based on it's effects. The effects of Clark's actions were the production and supply of so many things that sustain and enhance life. This includes everything from eggs to copper to silver to loans to wire, etc, etc. TJ and GW were intricate parts of the production of a free nation that allowed Clark to make his own contributions. The latter is more important, but they also did a much more evil action every time they chose not to free their slaves.
My critiquer wanted me to add some positive things about Clark in my intro, and I thought about it, but decided against it. My intro is good and his point, while granted, doesn't equal the reduction in flow that acting on it would have caused. He also wanted me to include some info on how Clark helped "the little people." I find this absolutely unnecessary because that isn't the definition of "good." I don't see a need to include what he did "for" others, when I don't believe he had any obligation to others. The moral purpose of men's lives (in my humble opinion) isn't other people's well-being, it's their own happiness. Therefore, if you assume "Man's Life" to be the primary value, then their productive achievement is a measure of their virtue, because producing that which enhances or sustains life is objectively valuable, and one becomes happy by achieving these objective values as opposed to looking for social acclaim or acceptance. Clark could have done well to remember the latter part of that maxim.
Anyway..., I think that the final draft of my paper turned out well. I'm happy with it; if only that meant something to the GPA.
