Ch 2. What is an argument

An Argument is a Claim Supported by Other Claims

• Definition of an Argument:

  • An argument consists of a group of statements, where one or more statements (premises) provide evidence for another statement (conclusion).
  • Premises can be:
    • Conclusions of previous arguments
    • Statements of fact
    • Personal observations
    • Expert testimony
    • Common knowledge
    • Definitions, principles, or rules

• Purpose of an Argument:

  • To demonstrate the truth or falsity of a claim by presenting supporting evidence.
  • A statement or opinion alone is not an argument unless it is defended with at least one supporting claim.

• Identifying the Conclusion:

  • The conclusion is the statement supported by premises.
  • It should not be confused with the main point of the material.
  • Many editorials or letters express opinions without providing supporting reasons, making them not arguments.
  • To locate a conclusion, look for a statement that provides a reason for believing another statement is true.

• Common Indicator Words:

  • Conclusion indicators: “therefore,” “consequently,” “hence,” “so,” “then,” “it follows that”
  • Premise indicators: “since,” “because,” “if,” “assuming that”
  • Real-life arguments do not always use these indicators, requiring interpretation of the argument’s structure.

• Complex Arguments:

  • Some arguments contain multiple levels of support, where:
    • Premises support sub-premises before reaching the main conclusion.
    • The primary thesis being defended is usually the main conclusion.
  • Multiple arguments may be presented, especially in speeches and informal discussions.
  • When multiple arguments exist, discussions should focus on one argument at a time for clarity.

Distinguishing Argument from Opinion

• Common Misconception:

  • Many people use “argument” and “opinion” interchangeably.
  • When asked for an argument, people often provide their belief rather than a supported claim.

• Key Difference:

  • Opinion: An unsupported claim.
  • Argument: A supported claim where the conclusion follows from premises.
  • A belief should be the conclusion of an argument, resulting from rational reflection on evidence.

• Supported vs. Unsupported Opinions:

  • All claims are opinions, but the question is whether they are supported or unsupported.
  • An opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is not “just an opinion”; it is a justified position.
  • Any criticism of an argument should address the quality of its support, not merely dismiss it as an opinion.

• Cultural Habit of Unchallenged Opinions:

  • People often exchange opinions without providing reasons.
  • The phrase “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” is true, but the real issue is:
    • Which opinions deserve acceptance?
    • Without reasons, an opinion’s validity cannot be assessed.

• Why Arguments Matter:

  • Opinions rarely change unless compelling arguments are presented.
  • Some opinions conflict with each other, meaning at least one must be false.
  • Since conflicting opinions exist, we know that some people hold false beliefs.
  • The only way to determine truth is by evaluating the quality of arguments supporting each view.

The Burden-of-Proof Principle

• Definition:

  • The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim.
  • If challenged with “Why?” or “How do you know?”, they are obligated to provide supporting reasons.

• Exceptions:

  • If a claim is well-established or uncontroversial, the burden of proof may shift to the challenger.
  • Shared opinions among participants in a discussion do not require defense in that context.

• Avoiding an Infinite Chain of Proofs:

  • One is responsible for defending the conclusion and any questionable premises, if asked.
  • However, requiring justification for every single supporting statement would lead to an impractical infinite regress.

• Burden of Proof in Institutions:

  • Pharmaceutical companies must prove the safety and efficacy of new drugs to the FDA.
  • In criminal law, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt.
  • Similarly, in discussion, people should not be allowed to make claims without defending them.

• Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance:

  • Invalid reasoning: A claim is true just because it hasn’t been disproven.
  • Example: “My great-grandfather died of AIDS unless you can prove otherwise.”
  • This approach shifts the burden unfairly to the opponent and attempts to win by default.

• No Wins by Default in Arguments:

  • The merit of a position depends on the strength of its supporting argument.
  • One must accept responsibility for proving their own claims and expect the same from others.

• Informal Discussions vs. Formal Proof:

  • Good discussions involve both defending and evaluating claims, making them more collaborative and efficient.
  • However, controversial claims still require burden of proof and cannot be shifted unfairly.

• Levels of Proof:

  • “Proof” does not mean absolute certainty or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (as in criminal trials).
  • In most cases, a claim should be supported by a preponderance of evidence (as in civil trials).

• The Agnostic vs. Denial Option:

  • Saying “I have no reason to believe X is true” does not mean X is false.
  • If you claim “X is false,” you now have the burden of proof for that claim.
  • Example:
    • Agnostic stance: “I have no reason to believe ghosts exist.” (No burden of proof)
    • Denial stance: “Ghosts do not exist.” (Burden of proof required)

The Standard Form of an Argument

• Purpose of Standard Form:

  • Helps evaluate an argument by clearly presenting its logical structure.
  • Separates premises, subpremises, and conclusions for better analysis.

• Standard Argument Format:

  Since (premise),
  which is a conclusion supported by (subpremise),
  and (premise),
  which is a conclusion supported by (subpremise),
  and (premise),
  [and (implicit premise)],
  and (rebuttal 反駁 premise),
  Therefore, (conclusion).

  • Premises: Statements supporting the conclusion.
  • Subpremises: Statements supporting premises.
  • Implicit Premises: Unstated but necessary assumptions, enclosed in brackets [ ].
  • Rebuttal Premises: Address anticipated objections.
  • Conclusion: The claim supported by the premises.

• Key Considerations When Reconstructing Arguments:

  • The number of premises varies depending on the argument.
  • Not all premises require subpremises.
  • Some premises and conclusions may be implicit, requiring logical inference.
  • Irrelevant material should be excluded unless the arguer considers it relevant.
  • Multiple arguments in the same passage should be reconstructed separately.
  • Translate the argument into concise, clear language while preserving its intent.

• Subarguments:

  • A subargument occurs when a subpremise supports a premise rather than the main conclusion.
  • The standard form should show the distinction between direct and indirect support.

• Rebuttal Premises:

  • Good arguments anticipate objections and provide rebuttal premises.
  • Most arguments lack rebuttal premises, but their presence strengthens an argument.

• Example Reconstruction: (Letter to the Editor on AIDS) Original Argument:

  • Claims AIDS is a divine punishment for homosexual behavior, citing religious beliefs.
  • Asserts science cannot cure AIDS, reinforcing the divine punishment claim.

  Reconstructed Standard Form:

  Since God disapproves of homosexual behavior, (premise)
  which is a conclusion supported by passages in the Bible, (subpremise)
  and God punishes those who commit acts that he disapproves of, (premise)
  [which is also supported by passages in the Bible,] (implicit subpremise)
  [and AIDS is clearly associated with homosexual activity,] (implicit premise)
  and since science has not found any cure for the disease and will not find it, (rebuttal premise)
  Therefore, AIDS is a form of divine punishment for homosexual activity. (conclusion)

  • Eliminated irrelevant material, such as personal beliefs about God’s love.
  • Explicitly stated unstated premises, such as the assumption that AIDS is linked to homosexuality.
  • Identified a rebuttal premise addressing the scientific counterargument.

• Importance of Standard Form:

  • Clarifies the argument structure.
  • Makes evaluation easier by reducing unnecessary elements.
  • Prepares for fair assessment, leading to the Principle of Charity (which ensures arguments are reconstructed in their strongest form).

The Principle of Charity

• Definition:

  • When reformulating an opponent’s argument, it should be expressed in its strongest possible version while remaining true to the arguer’s original intent.
  • If intent or implicit premises are unclear, the arguer should be given the benefit of the doubt and, when possible, the opportunity to revise their argument.

• Ensuring Fairness in Reconstruction:

  • The arguer should be allowed to refine or correct the reconstructed argument.
  • The goal is to evaluate the best possible version of the argument.

• Guidelines for Reconstructing an Argument:

  • Formulate the argument as accurately as possible based on what the arguer likely intended.
  • Do not change or improve the argument beyond what is explicitly or implicitly present.
  • Supply unstated but necessary premises and remove irrelevant material.
  • Use clearer or more precise language when needed, without altering meaning.

• Avoiding Misrepresentation:

  • Once an argument is in standard form, its flaws may become more apparent.
  • The arguer may accuse you of misrepresenting their position if weaknesses are too exposed.
  • To prevent this, ask the arguer to confirm the reconstruction before pointing out flaws.
  • If the argument is weak, the arguer may amend it—you may even assist in refining it.

• Ethical and Practical Importance:

  • Ethically, fair discussion requires accurate representation of arguments.
  • Practically, attacking a weakened version of an argument wastes time.
  • If truth or the best answer is the goal, engaging with the strongest version is necessary.
  • If an unfair version is challenged, it will need to be corrected—so it’s best to be fair from the start.

Deductive vs. Inductive Strength of Arguments

• Importance of Distinction:
  • Understanding whether an argument is deductive or inductive helps assess its strength.
  • The type of argument determines the degree of certainty in the conclusion.

Deductive Arguments

• Definition:

  • A deductive argument is structured so that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
  • The conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises.
  • It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.

• Example of a Deductive Argument:

  Since all U.S. senators are at least thirty-five years old, (premise)
  and John Morgan is a U.S. senator, (premise)
  Therefore, John Morgan is thirty-five years old or older. (conclusion)

  • The conclusion is already contained within the premises.

• Effectiveness of Deductive Arguments:

  • If the key premises are accepted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

  • Used strategically in moral arguments to make acceptance of the premise lead inevitably to the conclusion.

  • Example:

    Since sexist practices are wrong, (moral premise)
    and male-dominated language is a sexist practice, (premise)
    Therefore, male-dominated language is wrong. (conclusion)

  • If someone accepts the moral premise, they must accept the conclusion unless they challenge another premise.

Inductive Arguments

• Definition:

  • An inductive argument provides probable support for its conclusion but does not guarantee it.
  • The truth of the premises does not ensure the conclusion is true.

• Example of an Inductive Argument:

  Since Senator Stone is the most popular Democrat in the Senate, (premise)
  and he is personally charming and articulate, (premise)
  and he has moved to a moderate political position, (premise)
  and he always wins reelection easily, (premise)
  and he is frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, (premise)
  Therefore, the Democrats will choose Senator Stone as their next presidential candidate. (conclusion)

  • The conclusion is not logically certain, as additional factors (e.g., Stone declining to run) could change the outcome.

• Strength of Inductive Arguments:

  • Inductive conclusions extend beyond the premises, making them less certain than deductive conclusions.
  • Many everyday arguments are inductive, making their conclusions probable rather than guaranteed.

Converting an Inductive Argument into a Deductive One

• An inductive argument can sometimes be restructured deductively by adding a key value premise that logically necessitates the conclusion.

• Example (Original Inductive Argument):

  Since Roz loves to cook, (premise)
  and she has always dreamed of opening a French restaurant, (premise)
  and she hates her present job, (premise)
  Therefore, Roz should quit her job and open a French restaurant. (conclusion)

  • Inductive weakness: The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

• Converted into a Deductive Argument:

  Since Roz loves to cook, (premise)
  and she has always dreamed of opening a French restaurant, (premise)
  and she hates her present job, (premise)
  [and a person should always follow their dreams,] (added premise)
  Therefore, Roz should quit her job and open a French restaurant. (conclusion)

  • The added premise makes the argument deductive, as accepting it forces acceptance of the conclusion.

Value Arguments (Moral, Legal, Aesthetic)

• Some deductive arguments require a value premise to function logically.
• Examples:
  • Moral arguments rely on general moral principles.
  • Legal arguments rely on laws or precedents.
  • Aesthetic arguments rely on criteria of beauty or artistic standards.
• Without a clear value premise, a deductive moral or legal argument lacks a foundation.

Moral Arguments

• Deductive Strength of Moral Arguments:

  • Moral arguments often take a deductive form, making them logically strong if their premises are accepted.
  • Some believe moral judgments are just opinions, but moral claims can be defended with reasoning, like any other claim.

• Key Features of Moral Arguments:

  • Like other arguments, they include factual and definitional premises.
  • Unique requirement: A moral premise—a general moral principle that supports the moral judgment in the conclusion.
  • Moral premises typically use words like “ought,” “should,” “right,” “wrong,” “moral,” or “immoral.”
  • Example moral premises:
    • “One should treat others with respect.”
    • “It is wrong to discriminate based on sex.”

Structure of a Moral Argument

• A moral argument moves from a moral premise to a moral conclusion using other supporting premises.

• A crucial logical rule:

  • You cannot move from a factual statement (“is”) to a moral judgment (“ought”) without a moral premise.
  • Doing so commits the is-ought fallacy.

• Example of a Proper Moral Argument:

  Since cheating is wrong, (moral premise)
  and studying from an unauthorized copy of a final exam is a form of cheating, (connection premise)
  Therefore, studying from an unauthorized copy of a final exam is wrong. (moral judgment)

  • If both premises are accepted, the conclusion is unavoidable (deductive strength).

Implicit Moral Premises and Their Importance

• Many moral arguments do not explicitly state their moral premise.

• Following the Principle of Charity, implicit premises should be made explicit in argument reconstruction.

• Benefits of Making Moral Premises Explicit:

  1. Clarifies the central issue of moral disagreement.
  2. Allows for examination of exceptions or conflicts with other moral principles.

• Example Moral Argument (Handgun Restriction): Original argument:

  • “We ought to restrict handguns to those with a documented need. Too many people are dying from gun-related accidents, including children.”

  Reconstructed argument (Standard Form):

  Since the easy availability of handguns contributes to many accidental deaths, (premise)
  and the availability of handguns contributes to many other unnecessary deaths as well, (premise)
  and it is impossible for adults to completely prevent unauthorized access to guns, especially by minors, (premise)
  [and we ought to do whatever would reduce the number of accidental and unnecessary deaths], (implicit moral premise)
  [and restricting handgun use to those with a documented need would reduce those deaths], (implicit connection premise)
  Therefore, we ought to restrict handgun use to those with a documented need. (moral conclusion)

  • The core issue is whether the implicit moral premise is acceptable.

Testing the Moral Premise for Consistency

• By making the moral premise explicit, potential objections become clearer:

  • Would the arguer apply the same principle to other causes of accidental deaths (e.g., cars, swimming pools, horseback riding)?
  • If not, why should guns be an exception?
  • Could gun ownership itself be a legitimate exception to the moral principle?

• Possible Outcomes of Clarifying the Premise:

  • The arguer rethinks or modifies the moral premise.
  • The opponent directly challenges the moral premise rather than the conclusion.
  • A stronger or more nuanced argument emerges.

Conclusion:

• Moral arguments can be among the strongest arguments when structured deductively.
• Clarifying implicit moral premises is crucial for properly evaluating moral debates.
• Making the moral principle explicit helps identify where real disagreement lies and encourages a more meaningful discussion.

Legal Arguments

• Similarity to Moral Arguments:

  • Just as moral arguments require a moral premise, legal arguments require a legal standard (law, precedent, or procedural rule).
  • Legal disputes cannot be resolved without referring to controlling legal principles.

• Challenges in Legal Reasoning:

  • Determining which law, precedent, or rule applies can be complex.
  • Conflicting rules may exist, requiring careful legal interpretation.
  • Despite complexities, legal professionals do not abandon reasoning—they construct arguments to persuade judges and juries.

• Criteria for a Good Legal Argument:

  • Must meet general standards of good argumentation.
  • Emotional appeals or intellectual shortcuts may work temporarily but fail under serious scrutiny.
  • A just legal decision must be based on a strong legal argument.

Example: Child Custody Case

• Key Legal Standard:

  • The “best interest of the child” is the primary legal precedent in custody disputes.
  • A lawyer must align their client’s case with this controlling legal principle.

• Reconstructed Legal Argument (Standard Form):

  Since child custody should be determined in accordance with what would be in
  the best interest of the child, (legal premise)
  and the custody plan we propose would be in the best interest of my client’s child, (premise)
  which is supported by the following evidence, (subpremises)
  Therefore, the court should adopt our proposed custody plan. (conclusion/legal judgment)

  • Legal premise: Establishes the governing legal standard.
  • Premise: Argues that the proposed custody plan meets the legal standard.
  • Subpremises: Provide evidence supporting the claim.
  • Conclusion: The court should rule in favor of the proposed custody plan.

• Key Takeaway:

  • The legal standard defines the scope and direction of legal arguments.
  • A strong legal argument demonstrates how the case aligns with established law.

Aesthetic Arguments

• Definition and Importance:

  • Aesthetic arguments aim to justify judgments about beauty or artistic merit.
  • These arguments are as common as moral arguments, appearing in daily conversations about art, nature, and human appearance.

• Common Misconception:

  • People often dismiss aesthetic disagreements by saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
  • However, many still try to convince others that their aesthetic judgment is correct.
  • This suggests a desire for rational justification rather than mere subjective opinion.

• Structure of a Strong Aesthetic Argument:

  • Like moral and legal arguments, an aesthetic argument requires a general aesthetic criterion in its premises.
  • The argument must also meet the five general criteria of good arguments from the Code of Intellectual Conduct.
  • Deductive form: If the premises and aesthetic criterion are accepted, the conclusion follows logically.

Example: Evaluating the Music of Lennon and McCartney

• Common aesthetic criteria:

  • Enduring popularity: Good music continues to be appreciated over time by large audiences.
  • Expert recognition: Music consistently praised by experts has artistic merit.

• Reconstructed Argument (Standard Form):

  Since a primary determinant of good music is whether it has continued to be
  positively appreciated over a long period of time by large numbers of people, (aesthetic premise)
  and a related commonly accepted determinant of the merit of music is whether
  the music has been consistently praised by experts in the field, (aesthetic premise)
  and experts in the field of music have consistently praised the songs of Lennon and McCartney, (premise)
  and music patrons in large numbers have consistently found a positive aesthetic
  experience in listening to the songs of these composers, (premise)
  Therefore, the music of Lennon and McCartney is good music. (conclusion/aesthetic judgment)

  • This argument applies widely accepted aesthetic criteria to reach a deductive conclusion.

Key Takeaways for Value Arguments:

• Value arguments (moral, legal, aesthetic) can be as strong as non-value arguments if properly structured.
• Essential feature:
  • Moral arguments require a moral criterion.
  • Legal arguments require a legal criterion.
  • Aesthetic arguments require an aesthetic criterion.
• Without the appropriate value criterion, no valid value judgment can be drawn.
• Mastering value arguments is crucial, as they dominate discussions on controversial and meaningful topics.