Scribd
Upload
17 views

2 Deductive Arguments

This document introduces philosophical arguments. It explains that philosophical writing relies on presenting strong arguments with valid logical structures. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises. A sound argument is valid and has only true premises. Examples are given of valid and invalid arguments, consistent and inconsistent premises. The key to strong philosophical writing is constructing arguments that are sound through valid logical reasoning and consistency.

Uploaded by

Jerry Clack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views

2 Deductive Arguments

This document introduces philosophical arguments. It explains that philosophical writing relies on presenting strong arguments with valid logical structures. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises. A sound argument is valid and has only true premises. Examples are given of valid and invalid arguments, consistent and inconsistent premises. The key to strong philosophical writing is constructing arguments that are sound through valid logical reasoning and consistency.

Uploaded by

Jerry Clack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 15

Introduction to philosophical arguments

‘Philosophy is thinking in slow motion’


Professor John Campbell,
University of California
The basis of philosophical writing
• At the heart of philosophy is philosophical argument. In contemporary, analytic
philosophy, the strength of a writer’s philosophy still depends upon the strength of their
argument.
• The argument will consist of several premises towards a conclusion.

Deductive arguments
e.g. 1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
C: Socrates was mortal.
The basis of philosophical writing
• Presenting your own argument shows how well you understand a debate.
• Mounting objections against another writer’s arguments shows how well you have
understood their arguments.
• In written form just as in a logical proof, your arguments should follow the laws of logic
(for example, avoiding fallacies) and thus demonstrate good deductive reasoning.
What is A VALID argument?
Earlier we saw the following argument:
1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
C: Socrates was mortal.

This argument is VALID because the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Another
argument following the same pattern is also valid:

1.) All men are married.


2.) Bob is a man.
C: Therefore, Bob is married.
What is a sound argument?
• Both arguments are valid because they follow the same logical pattern: All Xs are y, F is
an X, therefore F is y.
• However, only one of those arguments is sound.
1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
C: Socrates was mortal.

• This is true, insofar as historical record tells us that Socrates really lived. With true
premises logically leading us to a true conclusion, this argument is sound.
What is a sound argument?
1.) All men are married.
2.) Bob is a man.
C: Therefore, Bob is married.

• This argument is valid, but not sound, because premise 1 is false (it doesn’t matter about
premise 2 by this point).
• The best philosophical arguments are sound arguments!
Invalid arguments
An invalid argument involves a false logical move in the premises, or draws a conclusion
that does not follow from them, as in the following argument:

1. There are no polar bears in England.


2. Frank is a polar bear.
C: Frank lives in England.
Write one of each
1. Invalid argument with rue premises

2. Valid argument with false premises

3. Sound argument
Consistent arguments
• Even if an argument has false premises, the premises might still be consistent.

• Premises are consistent when they can be (at least potentially) all true at the same time.

• If you have two or more premises which cannot both be true together, then this set of
premises is inconsistent.
An example of consistent premises
1. Either Bob or Sue has won a prize.
2. If Bob has not won, then Sue has.

In logic, with disjunctions (‘either/or’ sentences), one of the disjuncts (options) must be
true, or the whole thing is false.
This means that it is correct that if Bob is not the winner, then Sue is.
These premises are logical equivalents, so they are certainly consistent.
Inconsistent premises
1. Britain cannot both leave the EU and remain a member of the EU.
2. Brexit means that Britain will remain a member of the EU.

Where Brexit is defined as Britain leaving the EU (not just the tautology ‘Brexit means
Brexit’!), premises 1 and 2 are inconsistent.

Inconsistency is typically due to two premises implying a logical contradiction.


Test yourself!
Is the following set of premises consistent?

1. To get a free drink, you must order both fish and chips.
2. You cannot order fish without chips.
3. You cannot get a drink without buying chips first.
How did you do?
1. To get a free drink, you must order both fish and chips.
2. You cannot order fish without chips.
3. You cannot get a drink without buying chips first.

The premises are all consistent, though neither 2 nor 3 follow from 1 (that is, they could
both be false whilst 1 is true).
How to argue well
• Present an argument which is SOUND: check that all the premises and the conclusion are
true, as well as the argument being valid.

• Checking for validity: what logical moves have you made?

• Check your premises for consistency: could they, at least in theory, all be true at the same
time or are there any logical contradictions?

You might also like