if bad thing weren't necessary, it would be bad, so pushes you toward making it necessary, integrating it into your identity.
Bad things are high-risk, high reward--hoping for miraculous transformation, but if not, you're worse off.
If task isn't set by God, can't count as act of freedom because nothing to provide resistance. Connected to earnestness objection. If self trying to give self task, could take back at any minute.
Make it your last priority. Primarily trying to say new things that answer the question well. Go for simple and effective instead of trying to make it perfect form-wise.
They're going to read it fast. You want it to be pretty clear what your points are, but if your word choice is simple or there isn't perfect flow, whatever.
People usually don't allocate only 10% of their time to it, but should probably put more time into the others. So like 15-20% ish.
Do it pretty well, seem like you liked doing it instead of did it because you had to, you get an A (he really basically said that. Referred to it as "almost like extra credit")
These thinkers don't adopt the standard starting point of modern moral theory. Most put interpersonal morality as ultimate, trumping good.
Beauvoir, others we read see moralistic condemnation as vice.
Sartre's relevant views--comes out better in Humanism than B&N. Seems wedded to many premises. His argument for our commitment to others--I choose my project from abstract PoV where I'm not anything yet. That's the PoV of anyone, so if I value my freedom then, must value anyone's freedom then.
Rousseau--extend amoure propre to other beings, turn it into a virtue (253 I think he said). Feel in first person plural. "Our" success.
High risk, high reward approach--Present your view on the question, mentioning these philosophers along the way
Lower risk, can still be great--have a thesis about the theme, treat the philosophers in relation to it.