Week 2 Discussion Forum
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Delaware County Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
103
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by DoctorDovePerson635
Creating Deductive Arguments on Both Sides of your Topic
In the required reading this week we learned about the deductive arguments.
In this discussion, you get to create a deductive argument on both sides of
your topic. Since the arguments are deductive, they strive to be valid. That
means that you should structure both arguments so that if the premises were
true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well (because it logically
follows from the premises).
Present both arguments in standard form, with the premises listed above the
conclusion.
After you present your arguments, consider how someone with the opposite
point of view might respond to each argument. Would they likely object to
the truth of a premise or to the validity of the reasoning (or both) and why?
Indicate briefly how you might address those weaknesses to strengthen your
arguments further.
Watch the PHI103 Week2 How to Construct a Valid Argument video designed
to help you to create valid arguments on controversial topics. This is linked in
the discussion forum.
Guided Response:
In addition to your original post, post a minimum of
three responses for a total of at least four posts. At least two responses must
be to your classmates; the third response could be to a classmate or your
instructor. Be sure to post on three separate days throughout the week to
promote further engagement and discussion. Each response should be a
minimum of 75 words.
In your replies to others, try to offer helpful feedback on their arguments in
the following two areas.
First, the reasoning: Is there any way that their premises could all be true
and their conclusion false? How so? If so, what premise might need to be
added in order to make it valid?
Second, the truth of the premises: Do you think that people with a different
point of view would consider the premises to be true? Could the argument be
altered in any way to make it more likely to be persuasive to people with
opposing perspectives?
Topic – Should the United States Implement a Single-Payer System
for Healthcare?
Argument For
Single-Payer systems save more lives.
The United States should do anything it can do to save lives.
A private only system is not the only way to save lives.
Therefore, the United States should implement a single-payer
system.
Argument Against
Single-payer systems leads to an increase in taxes.
Higher taxes are wrong.
Higher taxes do not save lives.
Therefore, the United States should not implement a single-payer
system
Opposing For
I think they would object to the premises of saving more lives and that the
United States should do everything it can to save lives. To counter the saving
more lives I would point to the fact of life expectancy of Finland, a country
with a higher life expectancy than that of the United States. To counter the
argument for the United States should do anything it can to save lives, I
would point to the United States Constitution that says it was establish in
part to “promote the general Welfare” of its citizens. I don’t think they could
object to the premise that a private only system is not the only way to save
lives.
Opposing Against
I think someone could object to the increase in taxes. To combat this, one
could point to the fact that Finland is ranked as one of the top countries for
tax collection. I think they could object to the high taxes being wrong since
taxes pay for a lot of stuff that we need. Higher taxes should mean more
stuff being taken care of. I don’t think anyone can object to the higher taxes
do not save lives.
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