Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 1000 words. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have
Assignment 1: Argument Reconstruction Write a paper where you reconstruct one of the arguments below. Your paper should: Begin with a brief summary of the argument. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is valid. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length. Have a brief concluding paragraph where you consider which premise an opponent of this argument would try to deny. The argument reconstruction is a short essay (800-1200 words) and will be evaluated on the clarity and accuracy of the reconstruction. (1) AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ETHICAL REGULATIONS OF BUSINESS “The short-sightedness [of ethical business advocates] is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.” (Friedman pp. 5-6) (2) AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PROFIT AS AN OBLIGATION “The problem is that “profit” is associated, in many people’s minds, with “self-interest.” “Ethics,” on the other hand, is usually associated with behavior that is “altruistic,” in some sense of the term. More precisely, morality can be understood as a “principled constraint on the pursuit of self-interest.” If this is the case, then substituting “profit” for “self-interest” yields the conclusion that business ethics must represent some sort of principled constraint on the pursuit of profit—not an injunction to maximize it.” (Heath, pp. 540-41)
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 1000 words. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have
Critical Paper Writing Guide In this class, you will be required to write you papers that critique arguments in the philosophical literature. To do so, I require you to write papers in a specific format. The format below is quite different from the one in which academic philosophy papers are written, but it will help you develop the skillset necessary for writing a clear and tightly argued philosophical essay. This handout is intended to prepare you for how to write a paper in this format. Your paper will follow these steps, which will be expanded on in this handout. Do: STEP 1: Choose a target argument. (passages will be provided) STEP 2: Reconstruct the argument in standard form. (see Part 2) List of valid argument patterns STEP 3: Motivate the argument. (see Part 3) STEP 4: Object to the argument. (see Part 4) STEP 5: Write the Paper. FOR THE ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION, SKIP STEP 4. STANDARD FORM (back to instructions) Validity: An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. A valid argument may have one or more false premises. A valid argument may have a false conclusion. But from the definition of validity, it follows that a valid argument with a false conclusion also has at least one false premise. Soundness: An argument is sound if and only if both (i) it is valid, and (ii) every premise is true. An invalid argument is never sound. A valid argument guarantees that if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion. This means that in order to object to a valid argument, showing that the conclusion is false is insufficient. You must also show which premise in the argument is false. Formal Validity: An argument is in formally valid if and only if both (i) it is valid, (ii) it follows some valid argument pattern. A valid argument pattern is one where, if you uniformly replace some words for others, the resulting argument remains valid. Valid argument patterns often use variables (A and B, or P and Q, or x and y) in order to show that these are the places where you could uniformly replace words. An example of a valid argument pattern: modus ponens (where P and Q are variables for sentences) If P then Q P Therefore, Q As long as you replace P throughout with the same sentence, and Q throughout with the same sentence, the resulting pattern will always be valid. An example of an invalid argument pattern: modus posers If P then Q Q Therefore, P You can show that modus posers is invalid by replacing the variables in a way that it gives you an argument with true premises and a false conclusion: If all cats are fish, then all cats are animals All cats are animals Therefore, all cats are fish Standard form: an argument is in standard form if and only if (i) it lists and numbers all premises, one below each other, followed by the conclusion at the end, (ii) it is formally valid, and (iii) every sentence either lists which previous sentences it follows from, or is listed as a premise(no line between premises and conclusion is necessary, but can be visually helpful) An example of an argument in standard form: If all cats are felines, then all cats are mammals. (premise) All cats are felines. (premise) Therefore, cats are mammals (1, 2) An argument is not in standard form if it is invalid. A list of valid argument argument patterns can RECONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT INTO STANDARD FORM (back to instructions) Your paper will require that you reconstruct arguments into standard form. I here give a step-by-step process of how to do so. If you have had to reconstruct arguments into standard form before, you can skip this section, though you might still find it helpful. STEP 1: Identify the conclusion The conclusion is not always easy to identify, but there are often conclusion markers (‘therefore’, ‘so’, ‘as a consequence’). STEP 2: Identify the explicit premises Not everything an author says before (or after) stating their conclusion will be a premise. Only things that are given as reasons for the conclusion count as premises. This is why it is important to identify the conclusion before identifying the premises. Premises are not always easy to identify, but there are often premise markers (‘because’, ‘a reason for this is’, ‘since’) STEP 3: Make a first pass construction List all the explicit premises, followed by the conclusion. If the argument is already formally valid, you are done. If not, continue to step 4. STEP 4: Add implicit premises Most authors don’t explicitly state all the premises in their argument. This might be because they are being careless, or because they think the unstated premises are obvious. Either way, a standard form reconstruction requires you to list all premises. When adding implicit premises, make sure that you don’t add any claims that you think the author disagrees with. If this happens, it is most likely because you did not correctly identify the premises of the argument. Go back to step 2. When adding implicit premises, don’t add any premises other than the one you need to make the argument formally valid. Otherwise, you may end up arguing against a strawman of the target argument. Often, the implicit premises will be either conditionals (If P, then Q), or categorical statements (All As are Bs). These are the most commonly omitted premises, but not the only ones. SUB-CONCLUSIONS: Your arguments may have enough premises that they will not fit any of the argument patterns above. If so, break the argument down. Give a modus ponens argument for an intermediary conclusion, and then use that subconclusion as a premise in an argument for a further conclusion. The simpler the reconstruction the better. Great reconstructions often only use chains of modus ponens inferences. (see the sample paper) STEP 5: Check for Formal Validity See if the argument is formally valid. If it is, you are done. If the argument is not formally valid, go back to step 4 and see if you can add other implicit premises. If you cannot do so, then go back to step 2 and see if you correctly identified the premises. STEP 6: See if the argument can be simplified The ideal standard form argument has 1-2 premises and a conclusion. Sometimes, your arguments will need 3-5 premises, and that is ok. But if you can reconstruct the argument so that it is shorter and simpler, without losing essential information, you should. You don’t need to have every reason for every premise in the argument itself. That is what the next section is for. Just make sure you have all the moving parts. If you’ve come up with an alternative, shorter reconstruction, return to Step 5. Every argument (good or bad) can be reconstructed into standard form. Reconstructing arguments into standard form is a skill. It will be difficult at first, but don’t get disillusioned! The more you do it, the easier it will become. For a helpful and much more detailed guide in reconstructing arguments this way, you can look at Richard Feldman’s book Reason and Argument.1 This book is very expensive, but the library has a copy. If you need a copy of the book and have not been able to get one from the library, get in touch with me and I might be able to find you a copy. MOTIVATING A STANDARD FORM ARGUMENT (back to instructions) Once you have come up with a successful reconstruction into standard form, you are ready to start thinking about the argument. You may be tempted to object to the argument right away, but you should be patient. Before you object to an argument, you should make sure you know why the author thinks this is a good argument. You should not object to an unmotivated argument. For each premise, write down some reasons for thinking that the premise is true. For explicit premises, this might be easy, as the author may give you reasons for thinking that the premise is true. For implicit premises, and sometimes also for explicit premises, you may have to come up with some reasons on your own. The better the reasons you give for the premises, the more impressive your reply will be. Not all premises are created equal, and not all premises require the same kind of justification. SIMPLE PREMISES: these are premises that are neither conditionals (If P, then Q), nor generalizations (All As are Bs). To give reasons for a simple premise, you might point to the fact that the premise is common knowledge, you can point to some scientific backing for the premise, or you might think that you can give an argument for the premise. Don’t give a detailed argument for each simple premise, just think of one or two simple reasons to accept it. CATEGORICAL PREMISES: these are premises of the form ‘All As are Bs’ There are several ways to argue for a categorical premise. Induction : argue that all observed As are Bs. Then argue that there is nothing special about having been observed. Conclude that, probably, all As are Bs. Arbitrary Sample: assume that some arbitrary thing is A. The thing you assume is A must be truly arbitrary: it can’t be some arbitrary A that you know. It must be something such that all you know about it is that it is A. Even if you know that there are no As, just pretend that there is some arbitrary A out there for the purpose of justifying the premise. Think about how the assumption that this arbitrary thing is A gives you a reason to think that it is B. Argument from essence: sometimes, you can argue that all As are Bs by claiming that what it is to be A includes its being B. For example: “all bachelors are unmarried” just follows from the fact that to be a “bachelor” just is to be an unmarried adult man. Indirect Argument: Assume that the categorical premise is false. Show that something absurd follows. Example: “All cats are felines.” Assume that Ted is an arbitrary cat. Since Ted is a cat, we know that Ted belongs to the species Felis catus, which is a species of the genus felis (feline). So Ted is a feline. But since Ted was an arbitrarily chosen cat (there’s nothing special about Ted), then we know that all cats are felines. These kinds of justification may look somewhat circular at times. Don’t worry about it, we are not looking to give a proof of the sentence, just some reason to accept it. CONDITIONAL PREMISES: these are premises of the form ‘If P, then Q’ The ‘P’ part of the claim is called the antecedent; the ‘Q’ part is called the consequent. To give reasons for a conditional, assume the antecedent is true. Even if you know that the antecedent is false, you should pretend it is true for the purpose of justifying the premise. Think about how the assumption that the antecedent is true has given you new reasons to accept the consequent. Sometimes the author will tell you why they think the antecedent gives you reasons to accept the consequent. If they don’t, then you should think of some reasons of your own. Again, you don’t need a lot of detail here. Example sentence: If all cats are felines, then all cats are mammals. Assume that all cats are felines. We now want to show that this gives us reasons to think that all cats are mammals. In order to show that all cats are mammals, assume Sonia is an arbitrary cat. Since Sonia is a cat, we know, from our first assumption, that Sonia is a feline. So Sonia belongs to the genus felis, which belongs to the class mammalia (mammals). So Sonia is a mammal. But Sonia is an arbitrary cat, so we know that all cats are mammals. So, on the assumption that all cats are felines, we have shown that all cats are mammals. The two examples given above are very detailed, and proof-like, but they don’t need to be. You don’t need to show that we know that the premises are true, just that we have some reasons to believe them. 1 or 2 sentences will usually do. OBJECTING TO A STANDARD FORM ARGUMENT (back to instructions) Once you have reconstructed an argument into standard form, and you have motivated it by thinking of reasons for each premise, you are ready to object! A valid argument has a false conclusion only if it also has one or more false premises. In order to object to a valid argument, then, you must find a premise that you think is false. You cannot object to a standard form argument just by objecting to its conclusion. STEP 1: Think of a premise that you want to object to, and of reasons to object to it. Don’t argue that the premise might be false, or that it is insufficiently justified. If you think the conclusion of a valid argument is false, then one of the premises must be false. Sometimes you are not sure whether one of your reasons is true, but you think that if it is true, then it would be a good reason to reject the premise. Ask yourself: can the person I’m objecting to say that my reason is false, or are they committed to its truth? If they can’t, then this might be a case were you can show that your target is wrong on their own grounds. You do not have to argue that your target is wrong on their own grounds. Maybe they themselves have a way to reject your reasons. That doesn’t mean that your argument is bad, only that it won’t convince your target. But the argument may still be strong if your reasons are in fact good reasons. If you think your argument would not convince your target, this is something you can mention in your concluding paragraph. Just like different kinds of premises must be motivated in different ways, different kinds of premises must be objected to in different ways. SIMPLE PREMISES: To object to a simple premise, do the same thing as you do to argue for the simple premise; but do it for the negation of the premise. CONDITIONALS: A conditional is false when its antecedent is true, but the consequent is false. To object to a conditional, assume that the antecedent is true, and argue that the consequent is false. OBJECTING TO CATEGORICAL PREMISES: Give a counterexample. If the categorical premise is “All As are Bs”, then give an example of something that is A and not B. STEP 2: Write down the premise you want to reject, with the word ‘Not’ before it. We will refer to this as “the negation of the premise.” This will be the conclusion of your own argument. STEP 3: Choose one of your reasons to object to the argument, and write it down as a premise. Check to see if the author addresses your objection. If they do, then you should be prepared to address their response. If you are not prepared to address their response, choose a different objection. STEP 4: Add any premises necessary to turn the argument into standard form. STEP 5: Motivate the premises in your argument. ONCE YOU HAVE REACHED THIS STEP, YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED TO WRITE YOUR PAPER, SHORT OF ACTUALLY WRITING IT. WRITING YOUR PAPER (back to instructions) In order to write your paper, once you have already done 1-4 follow these steps: STEP 1: Give an informal presentation of the argument you choose to object to. This is your introductory paragraph. DO NOT provide a longer introduction. Don’t worry about making the argument too precise here, that’s what the body of the paper is for. Just make sure it gives the reader a gist of what you are intending to discuss. STEP 2: Present the argument in standard form. (see part 2) STEP 3: Motivate the argument. (see part 3) STEP 4: Object to the argument. (see part 4) STEP 5: Assess your argument. Does your objection work, or does the author have a reply available to it? This should be a brief and informal discussion. You’ve already done the work of defending your objection in Step 4. This is your concluding paragraph. DO NOT provide a longer conclusion. “FOR THE ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION, STEPS 4 AND 5 WILL BE COLLAPSED INTO A SINGLE PARAGRAPH.” A paper written in this style will usually be between 1000 and 1500 words. To write a longer critical paper (you will not be required to do so in this class): Expand Step 1: Consider and respond to multiple arguments for the same conclusion. Expand Step 3: Reconstruct into standard form the motivations for some/all of the premises, and see if you can motivate each of their premises. When you object to a premise in the original argument, you should also object to each of the arguments that you gave in support of the premise you are choosing to reject. Expand Step 4: Present more than one objection to the target argument. Show that one premise is false for various reasons, or that multiple premises are false. Expand Step 5: Consider a replies to your argument in more detail. What objections can there be to various premises that you’ve used? What replies could you give to these objections. If an objection requires an especially detailed reply, consider reconstructing the objection into standard form as well. Not all papers are critical: sometimes, you will be arguing for/against a view, rather than an argument. This style can be easily adapted to such a paper. Instead of objecting to a target argument, use your argument as the target argument. Reconstruct it into standard form, and motivate it. Then consider one or more objections to it, also reconstructed into standard form and motivated. Then argue against a premise in each of the objections you’ve considered. For a longer paper, this last step may require you to present another argument in standard form. PROFESSORS AND TAS LOVE READING PAPERS THAT ARE THIS CLEARLY STRUCTURED. VALID ARGUMENT PATTERNS (back to instructions) Key to variables (in order of use): Variables for sentences: P, Q, R, S, T Variables for predicates: A, B, C, D, E Variables for subjects: x, y, z, v, w SENTENCE PATTERNS Modus Ponens If P then Q P Therefore, Q Modus Tollens If P then Q Not Q Therefore, not P Disjunctive Syllogism Either P or Q Not P Therefore, Q Hypothetical Syllogism If P then Q If Q then R Therefore, if P then R Double Negation Not Not P P PREDICATE PATTERNS: Universal instantiation All As are Bs x is A Therefore, x is B Inverse UI All As are Bs x is not B Therefore, x is not A None/All No As are Bs All As are not Bs Some/Not All Some As are Bs Not all As are not Bs Categorical Syllogism All As are Bs All Bs are Cs All As are Cs Existential Generalization x is A and B Some As are B 1 Richard Feldman (1998), Reason and Argument, 2nd ed., Pearson.
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 1000 words. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have
Sample Paper – Is Every Good Deeds Selfish? Joey’s Argument: In an episode of the 1990s TV series Friends1 has an episode (season 5, episode 4) in which a character (Joey) argues that all good deeds are ultimately selfish, because they make the person feels good about doing a good deed: Joey: Well, yeah, it was a really nice thing and all, but: it made you feel really good, right? Phoebe: Yeah, so? Joey: Well, it made you feel good, so that makes it selfish. Look, there’s no unselfish good deed. Sorry. (4:00-4:20) Phoebe then spends the rest of the episode trying to find a way to do something good without feeling good about it. Joey’s argument can be summarized as follows: Every action that makes one feel good is selfish. (premise) Every seemingly selfless action makes one feel good. (premise) So, every seemingly selfless action is selfish. (1-2) (Conclusion) If every seemingly selfless action is selfish, then every action is selfish. (premise) So, every action is selfish. (3-4) (Conclusion) Joey does not provide any reasons to think that (1) is true, so I will provide one on his behalf. An action is selfish if the consequence of that action is that the person who does it is better off. Feeling good is better than not feeling good. So, we should think that every action that makes one feel good is selfish. Joey argues for premise (2) by induction. He presents a case: Phoebe being a surrogate mother for her brother, and claims that even this seemingly selfless action made Phoebe feel great. He then extrapolates from this case to the general claim. He also challenges Phoebe to come up with examples of seemingly selfless action that don’t make someone feel good. But there is an even stronger argument for (2) that Joey ignores. This starts from noticing that everyone who decides to do something seemingly selfless would feel terrible if they didn’t do it. But this means that, in doing something seemingly selfless, the person who does it is avoiding feeling terrible. This means that doing the “selfless” deed feels much better than not doing it. Joey does not argue for (4), because he thinks it is obviously true. To see why, assume that every seemingly selfless action is selfish. This only leaves actions that are not seemingly selfless: actions that are seemingly selfish. But there is no reason to think that seemingly selfish actions wouldn’t in fact be selfish. So, on the assumption that every seemingly selfless action is selfish, we should conclude that all actions are selfish. My Objection Phoebe spends the episode of friends trying to find counterexamples to premise (2). I think this is misguided, since there are good reasons to think that premise (1) is false. I object by claiming that feeling good about the well-being of others is itself selfless. As a result, actions whose consequence is that we feel good about helping others are not selfish. We can give a more formal reconstruction of the argument as follows It is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. If it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others, then actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. So, actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish (1-2). If actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish, then not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. So, not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. The reason to accept premise (1) is quite obvious. If someone is truly selfish, it would make no sense for them to feel good about the well-being of others, as there would be no reason to care about their well-being. So it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. For premise (2), assume that it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. But this means that it is not for selfish reasons that one feels good about helping others. But if it is not for selfish reasons that an action makes one feel good, then it is not a selfish action. So, on the assumption that it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others, we should conclude that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. Premise (4) is pretty obviously true. Assume that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. Given that there are some such actions, it follows that there are actions that make one feel good and are not selfish. So, on our assumption that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish, we should conclude that not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. Conclusion: In this paper, I have presented an objection to Joey’s argument for the conclusion that everything we do is selfish. Joey assumes, and Phoebe does not question, that feeling good about what you did is enough to make that action selfish. What I have argued is that it matters why you feel good about the action you did. If you feel good for selfless reasons, then we no longer have any reason to think that the action is selfish. I imagine Joey might reply that even in such circumstances, one does benefit from doing a selfish deed. But since benefitting is not the reason one does the deed, it is hard to see why this would make it selfish. 1“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS” Friends, season 5, episode 4, NBC, 18 Oct. 1998.