Philosophy according to the public eye is just digging deeper into logical reasoning, but, it is much more than that, it is about truly understanding arguments and the formulas behind them to discover how they are made. This allows the philosophical mind to be able to study the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Singer states, “Philosophers don’t simply make claims; they instead give arguments.”
Philosophers present statements to represent factual opinions or claims, which is just a fancy way of stating your point. Their goal is to persuade someone to accept their way of thinking, and to understand the valid arguments that are made. They will state reasons, which tell us about the importance of the claim and the argument, and they will provide counterexamples, which are used to disprove a point using evidence. And through that they will use justification, which is use of good reason and why you should believe it. Taking all of this into account when looking at the argument as a whole, how can you tell if the argument is valid? It is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Now, what makes a valid argument so good? The conclusion has to be true. This can be proved using modus ponens, which states that if P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true. The form of Modus Ponens can best be explained stating the following: the argument form has two Sheets 2 premises (hypothesis). The first premise is the “if-then” or conditional claim (P->Q). The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From this it is logically concluded that Q must be true. What determines if those are morally blameful? …show more content…
Singer seems to try to convince those that they are by way of argument. For example: “One can donate money to the local dog shelter to prevent abandoned dogs from being left to die on the streets. One is morally obligated to donate money to the local dog shelter.” Is this argument logically valid? Validity can only be proven if it takes the form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. If the argument is valid it is guaranteed that the conclusion is true. When looking at the above argument does that prove whether or not those are morally right or wrong? To do this, look at the argument first and see if it meets the conditionals of validity. If so, you have a sound argument. The argument above is not valid, and therefore not sound. An important part of understanding arguments is evaluating them. This takes practice but knowing basic philosophical terms helps when thinking in depth. Truth tables are a useful tool when determining the validity of an argument and consist of five truth-values. Examples of the five truth-values: True Premises with a true conclusion: All cats are mammals (T). All Sphynx are cats (T). All Sphynx are mammals (T). False premises with a true conclusion: All mammals are fish (F). All trout are mammals (F). All trout are fish (T). Sheets 3 False premises with a false conclusion: All terriers are birds (F). All mammals are terriers (F). All mammals are birds (F). Mixed (both T and F) premises with a true conclusion: All mammals are cats (F). All Sphynx are mammals (T). All Sphynx are
Philosophers present statements to represent factual opinions or claims, which is just a fancy way of stating your point. Their goal is to persuade someone to accept their way of thinking, and to understand the valid arguments that are made. They will state reasons, which tell us about the importance of the claim and the argument, and they will provide counterexamples, which are used to disprove a point using evidence. And through that they will use justification, which is use of good reason and why you should believe it. Taking all of this into account when looking at the argument as a whole, how can you tell if the argument is valid? It is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Now, what makes a valid argument so good? The conclusion has to be true. This can be proved using modus ponens, which states that if P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true. The form of Modus Ponens can best be explained stating the following: the argument form has two Sheets 2 premises (hypothesis). The first premise is the “if-then” or conditional claim (P->Q). The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From this it is logically concluded that Q must be true. What determines if those are morally blameful? …show more content…
Singer seems to try to convince those that they are by way of argument. For example: “One can donate money to the local dog shelter to prevent abandoned dogs from being left to die on the streets. One is morally obligated to donate money to the local dog shelter.” Is this argument logically valid? Validity can only be proven if it takes the form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. If the argument is valid it is guaranteed that the conclusion is true. When looking at the above argument does that prove whether or not those are morally right or wrong? To do this, look at the argument first and see if it meets the conditionals of validity. If so, you have a sound argument. The argument above is not valid, and therefore not sound. An important part of understanding arguments is evaluating them. This takes practice but knowing basic philosophical terms helps when thinking in depth. Truth tables are a useful tool when determining the validity of an argument and consist of five truth-values. Examples of the five truth-values: True Premises with a true conclusion: All cats are mammals (T). All Sphynx are cats (T). All Sphynx are mammals (T). False premises with a true conclusion: All mammals are fish (F). All trout are mammals (F). All trout are fish (T). Sheets 3 False premises with a false conclusion: All terriers are birds (F). All mammals are terriers (F). All mammals are birds (F). Mixed (both T and F) premises with a true conclusion: All mammals are cats (F). All Sphynx are mammals (T). All Sphynx are