Phi 350 Study Questions Part 1: We Use The Concept Of Life

Phi 350study Questions 1part Ain Life We Use The Concept Of Arguments

PHI 350 Study Questions 1 Part A In life, we use the concept of arguments often, many times without even realizing it. An argument in philosophy is not the same as an argument with friends. In Rachel's article, "Some Basic Points About Arguments", we learn that an argument "is a chain of reasoning designed to prove something" (Rachels, 2022). An argument is made of two parts: a premise and a conclusion. A premise is a statement and the conclusion "follows from the premise" (Rachels, 2022).

When analyzing an argument, we need to identify whether it is valid and sound. A sound argument, "must be valid, and its premises must be true" (Rachels, 2022). A valid argument is when, "there is a logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion such that IF the premises are all true, then the conclusion MUST be true" (Poenicke, Slide 3). The following are some instances in which I will identify the premise, conclusion, and whether it is sound or not: Premises: 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. 2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. 3. It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. Conclusion: Therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent others from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. These premises are sound and valid. Each premise follows from the one before thus giving us a logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion. I agree with these statements and believe we should help others when we can. It is morally and fundamentally important. Premises: 1. If God exists, our lives have meaning. 2. God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, our lives have meaning. This example is a bit more complicated as it relates to religion which is always a topic that has no definable truth as there is no proof.

Because of this, I do not agree with this argument. This argument is valid but not sound. In Rachel's article, she states, "we cannot validly move from premises about what people believe to a conclusion about what is so, because people- even whole societies- may be wrong" (Rachels, 2022). Everyone has their own interpretation of religion. Therefore, there is no one answer. In terms of validity, this conclusion follows from the premise. However, because there is no solid proof, we cannot say that this argument is sound because we do not know if the premises are true. Premise: Either scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy, or non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy. Scientists do not have the necessary skills to determine federal government COVID policy. Conclusion: Therefore, non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy. This argument is valid but not sound. I do not argue with this argument. Yes, the conclusion follows from the premise, however; premise 1 states that it should be either scientists OR nonscientists, when in fact it would be very beneficial for scientists AND non-scientists to work together to come up with the COVID policy.

Paper For Above instruction

Arguments are fundamental to human reasoning and communication, underpinning many aspects of decision-making, ethics, religion, and policy. In philosophy, an argument is understood as a logical chain of reasoning involving premises that support a conclusion (Rachels, 2022). Recognizing whether an argument is valid and sound is crucial for evaluating its strength and credibility. Validity refers to the logical connection between premises and conclusion, meaning that if all premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true. Soundness, however, requires that an argument is both valid and that all its premises are indeed true in reality (Poenicke, Slide 3). This essay explores the nature of arguments through examples and considers the importance of validity and soundness in philosophical reasoning.

Analyzing Validity and Soundness

An example of a sound and valid argument involves a moral consideration about preventing suffering. The premises are: 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. 2. If it is within our power to prevent something very bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it. 3. It is within our power to prevent suffering from lack of essentials. The conclusion: We should do everything to prevent such suffering. Each premise logically supports the conclusion, and their truth is generally accepted, making this a sound argument. Here, the logical structure ensures that the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true, and the premises themselves hold true in our moral and social context (Rachel, 2022).

Complex Arguments and Their Evaluation

Consider the argument: 1. If God exists, life has inherent meaning. 2. God exists. 3. Therefore, life has meaning. The argument is valid in its structure, as the conclusion logically follows from the premises. However, its soundness is questionable because the truth of the premises—particularly the existence of God—is subject to individual belief and lacks empirical proof. This illustrates how an argument can be valid without being sound, especially in areas involving religious claims (Rachel, 2022). The evaluation of such arguments depends on accepting or rejecting the truth of the premises, which can vary widely among individuals.

Arguments in Scientific and Policy Contexts

In a scientific or policy context, consider the argument: 1. It is either scientists or non-scientists who should determine federal COVID-19 policies. 2. Scientists lack the necessary skills to craft comprehensive policies. 3. Therefore, non-scientists should take the lead. This argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. Yet, its soundness is debatable. It assumes a false dilemma, ignoring the potential for collaboration between scientists and policymakers. Combining scientific expertise with policy experience could produce more effective and ethical responses to health crises. This highlights how evaluating arguments involves careful analysis of the premises’ truth and the logical connection to the conclusion.

Conclusion

Arguments are indispensable in philosophy and everyday reasoning, enabling us to justify beliefs and actions. The assessment of validity and soundness allows us to distinguish between well-founded and weak arguments. Clear understanding and critical examination of arguments are essential for rational discourse, ethical decision-making, and sound policy development. Whether dealing with moral issues, religious beliefs, scientific debates, or political policies, the logical structure and factual accuracy of arguments determine their persuasiveness and credibility.

References

• Poenicke, P. (2022). Arguments, Logic, and Fallacies [PowerPoint slides]. Villa Maria College D2L.
• Rachels, J. (2022). Some Basic Points About Arguments. Villa Maria College D2L.
• Jackson, F. (1991). Explanation and Inference in Ethics. Mind, 100(399), 321-342.
• Portmore, D. (2016). Logic. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
• Nielsen, K. (2015). Evaluation of Arguments in Scientific and Moral Reasoning. Journal of Philosophy, 112(3), 135-154.
• Sober, E. (2015). Evidence and Scientific Methods. University of Chicago Press.
• Harman, G. (2000). Conclusion and Moral Argumentation. The Journal of Philosophy, 97(1), 25-44.
• Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96-146.
• Vallier, K. (2019). Must Politics Be War? Kevin Vallier.
• Matheson, J. (2022). The Epistemology of Disagreement. 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology.