Study Questions 2

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.

Part B

Disagreeing between peers is common and bound to happen in a variety of situations. Matheson states in his article, "The Epistemology of Disagreement", that peer disagreements are between peers that have the same scope of knowledge or information – usually tied into their own beliefs (Matheson, 2022, ph1). An example Matheson gives is "Five people go out to dinner. We all agree to split the check evenly, not worrying about who ordered what. Eve does the math in her head and becomes highly confident that the shares are $43 each. Meanwhile, her peer Ava does the math in her head and becomes highly confident that everyone's share is $45 each" (Matheson, 2022, sec2ph3).

There are 3 main types of views when disagreeing with peers, Conciliatory, Equal Weight, and Steadfast. Following the example above, we can distinguish the different views while analyzing this situation:

Conciliatory: This view suggests that if a peer doesn't agree with you then you should change your view (Matheson, 2022, sec2ph1). Using this type of approach, Eve would then change her view and agree with Ava.

Equal Weight: Matheson states that this approach is when both peers' beliefs are considered equal in value and to "split the difference and meet in the middle" in their decision. In this case, both Eve and Ava should have no "particular belief about each share of the bill, and neither should anyone else at the table" (Matheson, 2022, sec2ph2).

Steadfast: This viewpoint suggests that an individual stands by their own belief regardless of their peers disagreeing (Matheson, 2022, sec3ph1). Using this method, if Eve did all the correct math and knows she is truly right based on calculated facts, then she should trust in her belief and stand by the idea that the shares are each $43.

I think that the various approaches need to be determined by the situation at hand. It involves not only what we believe but the evidence to back up those beliefs (Matheson, 2022). One topic that is continuously at disagreements is politics and religion. I found myself struggling this last election. I take a steadfast view because I think Trump is basically a dictator with absolutely no morals. I stand by my beliefs, even though some peers disagreed. Now when it comes to religion which is another field that peers disagree with, I take the approach of Equal Weight. There is no proof and therefore we should have no judgment in what we each think.

Part C

Kevin Vallier's solution to US political disagreement focuses on trust and an open society. Vallier states, “low social and political trust leads to a war-like politics” (Vallier, 2109). He says we need to trust each other by “motivating socially trustworthy behavior” (Vallier, 2019). We should not be mean, as that will only hinder the results. It is all about working together. Vallier states, “If we want trust in a diverse society, we need to ensure that the social norms to which we are all subject can be justified to each (somewhat idealized) members of the public” (Vallier, 2019). I admire Vallier’s approach, however; it is not realistic in any way. There are too many variables that citizens may not agree it. We live in a society where there is free will, thus giving people the advantage to do what they please (yes, there are consequences, but people still have a choice). Because of this, I think there is a high probability that people will not agree on the same things making an open society very hard to achieve. Trust is hard enough small groups yet alone with billions of people. That being said, I admire Vallier’s approach, but sadly it is not realistic.

Works Cited

Matheson, J. (2022, January 30). The Epistemology of Disagreement. 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/05/14/the-epistemology-of-disagreement/

Poenicke, P. (2022). Arguments, Logic, and Fallacies [PowerPoint slides]. Villa Maria College D2L. https://villa.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/19006/viewContent/122590/View

Rachels, J. (2022). Some Basic Points Arguments. Villa Maria College D2L. https://villa.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/19117/viewContent/122386/View.

Vallier, K. (2019, October 4).  Must politics be war? in 500 words. Kevin Vallier. https://www.kevinvallier.com/reconciled/must-politics-be-war-redux-500-words/