Chapter 3 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
140
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by MateWildcat2938
1.
Are all persuasive arguments valid? Can a valid deductive argument ever have
false premises? Why or why not? Recount a situation in which you tried to
persuade someone of a view by using an argument.
No, not all persuasive arguments are valid. To because to persuade someone would
mean you had convinced them that their opinion is wrong and not all arguments result
in the conclusion. In most arguments people walk away still believing their original
opinion. When it comes to valid deductive arguments, they cannot have false premises.
A valid argument cannot have a false conclusion if we assume all premises are true,
that will contradict itself. An example of trying to persuade someone of a view by using
an argument was when I told my parents that it would be easier and cheaper for me to
fly home for Christmas instead of them picking me up by car. 2.
Are the premises of a cogent argument always true? Is the conclusion always true?
Explain. What is the term designating a valid argument with true premises? a
strong argument with true premises?
Yes, premises of a cogent argument are always true as by definition it is “
a strong argument with true premises” (Vaughn, 2019, p.45). However, the conclusion is not always true because cogent arguments are inductive arguments which means they provide
probable but not decisive conclusions. A valid argument with true premises would be called a sound argument. All sound arguments have true premises.
3.
What kinds of premises must a moral argument have? What is the best method for
evaluating moral premises? (pp. 54–57) Explain the method for locating implied
premises.
A typical moral argument has a combination of premises moral and nonmoral. To
evaluate moral premises, you need to bridge the gap between the current premise and
the conclusion. The best way to do this is to ask yourself “
What premise can we add that
will be plausible and fitting and make the argument valid?” (Vaughn, 2019, p.53). The
method for locating the implied premise as stated in the textbook is to treat it as a
deductive (Vaughn, 2019, p.53). By doing this you approach a moral argument in a way
that helps you recognize the implied premises but also helps you assess the credit of all
the premises. 4.
Is it immoral to believe a claim without evidence? Why or why not? If moral
reasoning is largely about providing good reasons for moral claims, where do
feelings enter the picture?
According to W. K. Clifford it is immoral to believe a claim without evidence. He
states, “
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence” (Vaughn, 2019, p.44). He explains it by saying to believe
something never questioning or accepting other views then you are living a life of sin
against mankind. I believe feelings come into play when that’s what you acted on as a
basis for making your moral claims.
5. What is the difference between persuading someone to believe a claim and giving
them reasons to accept it? Can a good argument be persuasive? Why or why not?
The difference is that with persuading it is more emotionally driven but with giving them a reason it is logical you are providing evidence to support your reasoning. I think a good argument can be persuasive as it is important to use logic and give them evidence to back up, you’re reasoning but it is also important to connect your argument to emotion to give a sense of how real/important your argument is.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help