Question

...
alex

Can Deductive arguments change in circumstances?

“All Wars end by Negotiating, therefore we need to negotiate with Russia.” 

I think it’s a none sequitor and the fact the term Negotiating is extremely broad, which can mean anything from Unconditional surrender to prolonged talks back and forth. Or that you can be Negotiating in bad faith or playing hardball .

What I’m asking is if  I tell somebody. Do you still agree agree with that statement if I change Russia to “Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan”. None of them say they do. 

If the first statement does not logically guarantee the second statement wouldn’t it be fallacious or arbitrary to only accept it when its convenient? 

asked on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 10:58:55 AM by alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
3

This sounds like equivocation. The word negotiating is ambiguous and used in more than one sense. The statement is thus misleading.
answered on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 03:11:24 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Darren
1

There are many problems with this argument, including the fact that the premise is false.  

From a deductive standpoint, the premise does not imply the conclusion.  There is an implied second premise:     "However wars ended in the past is the way they should end in the future".  

With this added premise the argument would be valid but obviously not sound.

answered on Tuesday, May 09, 2023 11:28:44 AM by Darren

Darren Suggested These Categories

Comments