- Evaluating Arguments
- Relativism (Herodotus, Benedict, & Nagel readings)
- God Ethics (Mortimer & Arthur readings)
- Happy Ethics (Mill & Williams readings)
- Kant's Ethics (Kant & Taylor readings)
BE THERE.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Midterm Reminder
Just a reminder: The midterm is this Friday (March 27th). It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've done in class so far:
BE THERE.
BE THERE.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Kant's a Tool
I thought it might help us all if I opened up a post dedicated solely to complaining about how tough the Immanuel Kant reading was. Leave your best Kant insults in the comments of this post.
[can't get enough Kant?]
[smitten by Deontological Ethics?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]
[can't get enough Kant?]
[smitten by Deontological Ethics?]
[want tips on reading these articles?]
Monday, March 9, 2009
Paper & Midterm Rescheduled
We decided in class to move the due date of the first paper back until Wednesday, March 25th.
Also, we're pushing the midterm back to Friday, March 27th.
Also, here are some tips (one and two) on writing philosophy papers.)
Also, we're pushing the midterm back to Friday, March 27th.
Also, here are some tips (one and two) on writing philosophy papers.)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Cookie Party!
The 11:00 a.m. class is having a cookie party! Bake or buy cookies, cupcakes, pies, cakes, krimpets, or whatever you want. Then bring your baked goods to class on Friday, March 13th. There's a Facebook Event invitation -- go join the event!Sorry, 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. class, but this isn't for you. We can schedule a cookie party for our class some time in the future.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Another Snow Day!
Class is canceled today, Monday, March 2nd, because of the snow. In fact, all day and night classes at Camden County College are canceled.
Please go sledding! Take pictures!! SHOW THEM TO ME!!!
Please go sledding! Take pictures!! SHOW THEM TO ME!!!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Links Worthy of a Swine
Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on happy ethics (utilitarianism) that we are studying.
- A neat little biography of know-it-all John Stuart Mill
- An advanced encyclopedia article on happy ethics and other theories that focus on consequences of an action
- Another dinosaur comic! This one's on utilitarianism!!
- There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. Here's one overview of the psychology of happiness. And here's a second one.
- There's a great book on the psychology of happiness called Stumbling on Happiness
- Recent studies suggest that our baseline level of happiness doesn't change much throughout our life. So, even if we won the lottery, we wouldn't wind up that much happier. This is potentially very depressing news, although some say there's room for some optimism.
- The trolley problem gets brought up a lot when evaluating happy ethics. There's some new research on the psychology of the trolley problem.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
God Stuff
Here are some links on God Ethics (divine command theory).
- A transcript and audio of the entire F.C. Copleston & Bertrand Russell debate on the existence of God excerpted in our John Arthur reading
- A quick explanation of the Euthyphro Dilemma, the big criticism of God Ethics
- An advanced overview of God Ethics, again from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia
- Lots of philosophy links related to the broader question of whether there is or is not a god
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Paper #1 Guidelines
New Due Date: Wednesday, March 11th 25th, 2009
Worth: 5% of your overall grade
Assignment: Write an essay in which you support your opinion with an argument. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)
Paper Topics (Choose ONE of the following topics)
1. Defend a Theory. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied—moral relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant's ethical theory, Ross’s Deontology, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) of the best objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections to defend this theory? Explain & defend your position.
2. Criticize a Theory. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the eight ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, briefly explain the theory, and present what you take to be the best argument in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how someone who supports the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.
3. Facts, Opinions, & the Hitler Intuition. In class, we’ll be discussing the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many use this intuition to argue against moral relativism, and support the belief that moral claims are fact-based. Examine this intuition.
Worth: 5% of your overall grade
Assignment: Write an essay in which you support your opinion with an argument. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)
Paper Topics (Choose ONE of the following topics)
1. Defend a Theory. Out of the eight ethical theories that we have studied—moral relativism, God ethics (divine command), happy ethics (utilitarianism), Kant's ethical theory, Ross’s Deontology, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kohlberg’s moral development, and Gilligan’s ethics of care—which do you think is best? Why? What are some (at least two) of the best objections that someone might make to that theory? How would you reply to those objections to defend this theory? Explain & defend your position.
2. Criticize a Theory. Provide a detailed criticism of one of the eight ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. First, briefly explain the theory, and present what you take to be the best argument in its favor. Then critically evaluate the argument. What are good objections to the argument? Consider how someone who supports the theory might respond to your objections, and explain why these responses are unsuccessful.
3. Facts, Opinions, & the Hitler Intuition. In class, we’ll be discussing the “Hitler Intuition”: Hitler’s actions don’t just seem wrong for you or me; they seem objectively wrong. Many use this intuition to argue against moral relativism, and support the belief that moral claims are fact-based. Examine this intuition.
-If you agree that it is solid evidence for objective morality, explain exactly how this intuition works. What makes it objectively true that Hitler was immoral? What is the basis of your judgment? In other words, what makes moral claims objectively true? Which ethical theory we’ve discussed do you think this supports? Explain and defend all your answers.4. Motives vs. Consequences. Which do you think is more important in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong: the consequences of the action (what happens as a result of the action), or the motivations behind the action (the reasons why someone chooses that action over other actions)? Why?
-If you do not believe that this intuition is solid evidence for objective morality, you are probably a relativist. Explain why this intuition doesn’t provide enough evidence for the existence of an objective morality. Why is it OK to say that Hitler’s actions weren’t universally bad? How is it that Hitler is simply bad to me, but not objectively bad?
-Describe an ethical theory that we have studied that cares more about the consequences of an action.5. Choose Your Own Adventure! Write on a topic of your choosing related to some or one of the ethical theories we’ve discussed in class. (Sean must approve your topic by Friday, February 27th.)
-Then describe an ethical theory that we have studied that care more about the motivations of actions.
-In arguing for one side over the other, describe a specific moral dilemma in which these theories would give different decisions based on the action’s consequences vs. its motivations. Be sure to fully explain and defend your position.
[NOTE: You can choose either side, as long as you defend it with a well-reasoned argument.]
Monday, February 16, 2009
Structure
One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.
An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:
1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.
2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.
3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.
There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):
All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.
Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.
Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures guarantee that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.
The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.
Good Structured Args
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.
3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).
To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus the structure is good.
Bad Structured Arguments
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.
3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).
Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.
The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.
An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:
1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.
2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.
3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.
There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):
All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.
Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.
Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures guarantee that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.
The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.
Good Structured Args
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.
3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).
To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus the structure is good.
Bad Structured Arguments
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.
EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.
2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.
3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.
4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.
Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).
Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.
The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Quiz You Once, Shame on Me...
UPDATE: We've moved the quiz back! The first quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Monday, February 16th Wednesday, February 18th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. The quiz is worth 7.5% of your overall grade.
There will be two sections: the first section is on evaluating arguments, and will look just like the group work on evaluating arguments we did in class last week. There will also be a section of 4 short answer questions on the topic of moral relativism (Are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?) These questions will be based on our class discussions of the Herodotus, Ruth Benedict, and Thomas Nagel readings.
Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.
There will be two sections: the first section is on evaluating arguments, and will look just like the group work on evaluating arguments we did in class last week. There will also be a section of 4 short answer questions on the topic of moral relativism (Are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?) These questions will be based on our class discussions of the Herodotus, Ruth Benedict, and Thomas Nagel readings.
Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Understanding Args
Here are the answers to the handout on understanding arguments that was assigned as optional extra credit.
1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship
2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.
3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.
4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.
5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.
6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.
7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.
8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.
9. (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.
10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.
11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.
12. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.
----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website , and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website .
1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship
2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.
3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.
4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.
5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.
6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.
7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.
8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.
9. (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.
10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.
11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.
12. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.
----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website , and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website .
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Relative to You, But Not to Me
Here are some links on our first topic: are moral claims merely opinions or are they factually based?
- BASIC: a conversation between cartoon dinosaurs on moral relativism
- INTERMEDIATE: a clarification of what moral relativism is and is not
- ADVANCED: a detailed overview of various versions of moral relativism from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia (yes there are more than one free online philosophy encyclopedias)
- Ruth Benedict and Herodotus
- The Kwakiutl from Northwest America [Google Kwakiutl!]
- The Dobu of Melanesia
- Cannibalism!
- An interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of moral relativism
- An argument against the DIVERSITY THESIS: cultures morally agree more than they disagree
- A video lecture titled "Is Morality Real or Do We Make it Up?"
Friday, February 6, 2009
Join the Club!
So, I'm starting up a club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.
We're having our first meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, at Coffee Works in Voorhees. Students from most of the schools I've taught at are planning to attend.
Check it out! If you're interested, feel free to join us.
We're having our first meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, at Coffee Works in Voorhees. Students from most of the schools I've taught at are planning to attend.
Check it out! If you're interested, feel free to join us.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Evaluating Args
Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"
1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t a great prez.
Bush was the greatest prez.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.
(More on Sisyphus)
1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.
P1- true2) (from Stephen Colbert)
P2- true
structure- good
overall - good
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t a great prez.
Bush was the greatest prez.
P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)3) Some people are funny.
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
structure- good (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- bad (bad premises)
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.
P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)4) All email forwards are annoying.
P2- true
structure- bad (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- bad (bad structure)
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.
P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)5) All bats are mammals.
P2- true
structure- good (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - bad (bad first premise)
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.
P1- true6) Some dads have beards.
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
structure- bad (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- good (bad structure)
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.
P1- true7) This class is boring.
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- good (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- bad (bad 2nd premise)
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.
P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)8) All students in here are mammals.
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.
P1- true
P2- true
structure- bad (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- bad (bad structure)
9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.
P1- true!10) All students in here are humans.
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- good (same structure as arg #1, just repeated once more)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.
P1- true11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- true!
structure- good (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.
P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- false
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.
P1- questionable (again, you don't know)13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- true
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad 1st premise and structure)
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.
P1- questionable (again, you don't know)14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
P2- true
structure- good
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.
P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- bad (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- bad (bad premises and structure)
(More on Sisyphus)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
