Study Questions 2

2

2

Part A

I

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.

Considering and reading all the premises, this argument is valid. The premises are based on the truth that suffering and death can be prevented and lowered by taking sufficient measures against the lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The first premise states the truth regarding the cause of the suffering and death, which is evident from today's conditions. The second premise passes a moral judgment where it tries to persuade individuals to do morally right and correct actions. The third promise convinced individuals regarding the power to encourage people to take measures in order to prevent suffering and death due to a lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The last premise is trying to persuade people as it is based on the arguments that we should take measures to prevent people from dying (Rachel, 1989). Comment by Paul Poenicke: It would be helpful to have definitions of validity and soundness before discussing and applying these concepts. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You'd identified why the argument is valid and sound--you also need to explain to your reader why this is the case. Another sentence or two, explaining the argument's validity and soundness are appropriate.

II

1. In some societies, infanticide is thought to be morally acceptable.

2. In other societies, such as our own, infanticide is thought to be morally odious.

Conclusion: Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right or wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture. 

I agree with this argument, as infanticide depends on the moral values and norms of a culture or a society. The second promise reveals that in some cities, infanticide is not acceptable because it is considered an Immoral act; however, some societies and cultures accept it by considering or categorizing this as the right of women. Therefore, I agree with this argument that infanticide cannot be considered objectively write wrong as it depends on the opinion and the culture. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You're working from an intuitive understanding of validity and soundness. It is best to present this, especially when moving from the premises to the conclusion, that is validity, seems to be the most troubling aspect of this argument.

III

1. 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. 2. 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.  

I do not agree with this topic because I believe that scientists should be a part of the policy-making team. As scientists are aware of the technicalities, therefore, any area which requires some technical knowledge should be directed to scientists where they can state the pros and cons of a particular policy. Therefore, scientists should be the determiners of the federal government's COVID policy. Comment by Paul Poenicke: Setting up your analysis is key here: tell me what the premises and conclusion are, then tell me how the argument is valid and/or sound. This might seem robotic, but it's appropriate to be careful at this stage. Grade for Part A: 30/35 Comment by Paul Poenicke: Is the issue that they should be a part? Or that they are going to determine policy?

Part B

Peer disagreement occurs when individuals having knowledge regarding a particular topic disagree with each other on the basis of their own arguments. An example of peer disagreement can include disagreement between two researchers. For example, the researchers reared insects at 27 degrees Celsius in the lab environment; however, one of the researcher’s insects was unable to increase their generation having high mortality. At the same time, the other researcher had increased the population of insects at a similar temperature. Both the researchers disagreed with each other as both had different resorts according to their experience at similar temperatures and conditions, which led to a peer disagreement. Comment by Paul Poenicke: It would be helpful to cite the paper this example comes from and explain how they understand what a peer is.

The following three purchases can be used to explain peer disagreement:

The equal weight view: The equal weight view states that an agent disagrees with their peer about p on the basis of equal knowledge and information or experience, and one of the agents has to change their views. Comment by Paul Poenicke: This is better expressed as steadfast, conciliation, and concession. It would be appropriate to cite where you are getting this info from, as it is slightly different than how we approached the concept in class. One thing that you didn't include is your view on disagreement. That was part of the question, and it's a chance for you to present your view. Grade B: 28/35

The steadfast view: The steadfast view revolves around sticking one's guns inert instances or cases where peer disagreement can be rational.

The total evidence view:  the total evidence view claims that when a peer disagreement occurs, the agent who has the support of the evidence should be justified and believed. 

Part C

Vallier's first approach revolved around the belief of Vallier in treating the citizens. The first stage in providing the solution to political disagreement is whether we should be mean and attempt to eliminate our opponents. This approach needs to provide a valid argument as it is not based on the truth or the fact. Another argument revolves around the second stage of Vallier’s belief that political disagreement is no longer a threat to society as trust and neutral policies have encouraged society to be more open. At this stage, Vallier explains that several neutral policies have played an important role in increasing the viewpoints of a society where the norms of the society have resulted in endurance with our opposite views or opposition. Therefore, the strategy to utilize political disagreement is no longer a threat to society as people have started to accept the opposite views. Comment by Paul Poenicke: Vallier doesn't discuss validity, though it is important for him when considering how we ought to treat others. This is close to his solution for US politics.

Vallier provided a solution against US political disagreement that has efficiency because, in the first stage, Vallier addressed the behavior and perception of individuals against their opponents, where he highlighted the behavior and the treatment of the opponents. While in the second stage, he has addressed and highlighted the modernization of the society where issues like political disagreement are not a threat to this society because people are now starting to believe in neutral policies where the population benefits. These two stages highlight the most important issues in a society where endurance to the opponents can result in peer disagreement, which is based on the provision of truth and solid evidence. By disagreeing with one's arguments, we need to trust another political entity having similar knowledge and skills in politics who can deny on the basis of facts leading to the availability of different viewpoints for different people. Comment by Paul Poenicke: I'm a little confused by what you mean by first stage here. Use the language of the prompt to frame your answer. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You've got most of the prompt answered. Additionally, you need to present your view of whether Vallier's position is feasible. Grade for Part C: 25/30 Overall grade (including -3 for missing outline): 80/100

References

Rachels, J. (1989). Some basic points about arguments.  Rachels. J., The Right Thing to Do, 20-28.