CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

Transcription

1 CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those things in life worth accepting -- and those ideas worth modifying or totally rejecting -- we must first develop skills to evaluate the value of conflicting ideas and the philosophical positions used to support them. The primary focus of this chapter is to aid the student in developing her/his skills as a critical, philosophical investigator. Underscoring the fact that philosophy is more of a method than a body of knowledge, the material in this section teaches the student to employ structured processes of thought by means of properly conducted argument and accepted norms of logic (e.g., inductive and deductive logic). As well, the student will begin to recognize both faulty reasoning and logical fallacies. Class Suggestion: Before endeavoring to enter into the complexity of the practical syllogism or debating the many illustrations of an ad hominem fallacy, it would be a good idea to take some time to do the third Know Thyself selfdiagnostic: How Rational Am I? Although at first it may appear to be a test to the students, the exertion is well worth the efforts as this particular selfdiagnostic goes a long way in helping them determine their current level of reasoning a skill that will certainly come in handy when they are presented with arguments in which cherished values are at stake. Another activity I have found useful in the classroom is to run a video recording or have them read a newspaper article outlining a particular position of a local politician on a particular issue. Although not fully versed in the philosophical terminology, I have the students use the results/terms of their self-diagnostic to critically assess the politician s positions. For example, is the local representative presenting an argument or an opinion? Is the politician making a value judgment or presenting a factual statement? By the way, here is the answer key to the self-diagnostic: Part 1 1.v. 2.f. 3.f. 4.f. 5.f. 6.v. 7.v. 8.f. 9.v. 10.v. Part 2 1O. 2.A. 3.O. 4.O. 5.A. Part 3 1. Stoics value peace of mind; 2. Alcohol pollutes the mind; 3.Therefore, all misfortune is fated; 4. I am not happy; 5. If there is no God, then I am free.

2 Part 4 1.f. two wrongs fallacy 2.a. It is objective 3.f. appeal to authority 4.f. ad hominen fallacy 5.f. red herring fallacy

3 CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument Some suggest there are two unavoidable things in life: death and taxes. A third category could be disagreement. Disagreements should not be avoided; rather, properly conducted arguments should be welcomed. We should learn to develop attitude of honest, rational disinterestedness. Arguments can advance personal growth and promote professional development. Using the spirit of Socratic humility honest and open discussion one can move forward to some productive dialogue. The Socratic Method of Discourse: 1) Engage someone in conversation about a controversial issue. 2) Turn conversation in direction of some concept or term having philosophical significance or central importance to issue discussed. 3) Ask for definitional clarification of key philosophical concept or term. 4) Uncover inadequacies of definition provided and help the other to develop a new, more adequate one. 5) Critically examine the new improved version of the previously unacceptable definition offered, showing again how it fails or is inconsistent. 6) Repeat steps 4 and 5 several times until a clear definition is articulated to everyone s satisfaction. Opinions vs. Arguments: 1) Opinion usually a judgment, belief or impression with little concrete evidence to affirm said position. Tend to be emotional and unreasoned. They tend to be spontaneous. Little or no grounds for stating them. They are usually intended to fill space in idle conversation.

4 They can, however, be the first step to a rational philosophical discussion.

5 2) Argument a series of rational related statements leading to a conclusion. Earlier statements, acting as assumptions or major preceding premises, tie together with factual claims or minor premises in such a way that logical conclusions can be inferred or derived from them. Arguments should be positive and level-headed (rational disinterestedness). Object is to increase insights and knowledge. The desire should be to learn, not win or massage the ego.

6 Factual Statements vs. Value Judgments 1) Factual Statement statement that is true or false and can be so determined by empirical means. 2) Value Judgments are normative as opposed to empirical (e.g., what should be done, what is right or wrong). Usually relate to a particular action, event, policy, etc., and judged against our accepted ideals, principles and normative standards. Deductive Arguments 1) Deductive arguments are a logical form. 2) Within an argument is content. Arguments are about 'something': 1. practice (e.g., cloning, artificial insemination) 2. event (e.g., bombing in the Middle East) 3. act (e.g., civil disobedience) Types of Deductive Arguments Modus Ponens (MP) In this form of logic you should affirm the antecedent. Whenever the economy goes into a recession (p), then church attendance increases (q). Since we are currently in an economic recession (p), therefore, (q) We can conclude that church attendance has increased. Formula If p, then q p So (therefore) q *Warning -- Watch for affirmation of the consequent. Example of invalid form: If I bought a new BMW (p - antecedent), I would be broke (q - consequent). I am broke (q). So therefore, I must have bought a new BMW (p).

7 Modus Tollens (MT) In modus tollens arguments, inference results by denying the consequent. If it rains (p - antecedent), the streets get wet (q - consequent). The streets did not get wet (not q). So therefore, it has not rained (not p). Formula If p, then q not q So therefore, not p *Warning -- The invalid form of this argument involves denying the antecedent. Example of invalid form: If it rains (p - antecedent), there are clouds (q - consequent). It is not raining (not p), so therefore, there are no clouds (not q). Syllogisms 1) Hypothetical Syllogism: the pure hypothetical syllogism is an argument in which both the premises and the conclusion are hypothetical. If the sun is shining, it is warm; if it is warm, the plants will grow; therefore, if the sun is shining, the plants will grow. 2) Disjunctive Syllogism: this is an argument in which the leading premise is a disjunction, the other premise being a denial of one of the alternatives, concluding to the remaining alternative. This tends to be awkward with the use of "or" in the major premise. It is raining or I will go for a walk; but it is not raining; therefore, I will go for a walk.

8 3) Categorical Syllogism: comprises three primary categorical propositions. These statements can be demonstrated by the following forms: all A are B, no A are B, some A are B, or some A are not B. A categorical syllogism contains precisely three terms: the major term, which is the predicate of the conclusion; the minor term, which is the subject of the conclusion; and the middle term, which appear in both premises, but not the conclusion. Some college students are happy. All college students are high school graduates; therefore, some high school graduates are happy. 4) Practical Syllogism: similar to the categorical syllogism, but the first statement or major premise is a normative assertion or some kind of value judgment. All acts that harm human health are wrong. Polluting the lakes is an act that harms human health; therefore, polluting the lakes is wrong. More on Logic A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein Forms of Inductive Logic 1) Argument from Past Experience: this form leads to probable conclusions (not necessary ones). Someone lied before. They will probably lie again. However, facts can change tomorrow to make the person truthful. 2) Argument by Analogy or Empirical Induction: this form is (sometimes) proceeded by an analogy. Items A, B, and C have Characteristics X and Z. A and B have Characteristics Z. Therefore, C probably has Characteristic Z also.

9 (This sample depends on number and variety of characteristics.) 3) Inductive Generalization: takes a sample of one group and expands to include all members of that group. - Care must be made that sample is sufficiently large. - Sample must be based on fair samples (usually randomly selected). - Every segment of the class or group must be sampled. Testing Value Premises 1) Role-Exchange Test - Are you willing to exchange places with those most disadvantaged by the application of the rule or principle? 2) New Cases Test - If a value judgment is good for one circumstance, is it good for all similar sets of circumstances? 3) Consistency and Universalizability Test - If one cannot will that a particular value premise be acted upon or accepted by all or if it is inconsistent and self-defeating, then the value premise is inadequate and unjustified. 4) Higher-Order Principle Test - Is based on the notion that value principles (premises) we use in drawing particular moral conclusions are acceptable only if they can be derived or deduced from even more general principles which are acceptable. Faulty and Fallacious Reasoning 1) Ad Hominem Fallacy i) This type of fallacious reasoning attacks the person's character rather than the person's idea. ii) It may be emotionally satisfying, but it is contrary to the spirit of rational disinterest and Socratic humility. iii) It is useful when one questions a person's expertise, or credibility; e.g., a particular witness in court. 2) Straw Man Fallacy i) Occurs when one deliberately misrepresents an opponent s position, then... ii) Offers argument in such a way that it is unacceptable to those listening to the argument, then...

10 iii) Proceeds to argue against the misrepresented argument that was not the opponent's argument in the first place.

11 3) Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question i) The question involves using as a premise of one's argument the conclusion one is trying to establish. ii) This form of argument is circular. For example: Bill s Statement 1: God exists. Mary s Question 1: How do you know God exists? Bill s Response to Question 1: Because it says so in the Bible. Mary s Question 2: How do you know the Bible provides the truth about God? Bill s Response to Question 2: Because the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Circular Conclusion: The existence of God is proved by the Bible whose inspired truth must first presuppose the existence of God. 4) Fallacy of Two Wrongs: i) One defends their particular wrongdoing by drawing attention to another instance of similar behavior. 5) Fallacy of Appealing to Authority: i) One may claim authority in the form of popularity or democracy; e.g., Capital punishment should be re-instated because the majority are for it. However, the viewpoint of the majority may violate sound principles of ethical conduct and morality. ii) We may fall prey to likeable, but unqualified "authorities;" e.g., a sports figure who does not use the product they represent. iii) We base our authority on past traditions that may be outdated or wrong. Conclusion: Moral conflicts must be settled with rational arguments, not by reference to authoritative opinions. 6) Slippery Slope Fallacy i) Objecting to something because one incorrectly assumes that it will surely lead to other undesirable consequences.

12 ii) As a rule, one is not making an argument against the original premise, but rather, what the action might become.

13 7) Red Herring Fallacy i) States original position. ii) Then states another position that is close to original position. iii) Defends new position as if defending original position. iv) New position tends to be easier to defend and less open to debate. 8) Fallacy of Guilt by Association i) An opponent's position and credibility are called into question because she/he associates with a particular group. ii) This is not a direct personal attack such as ad hominem a less direct form of attack.