Is the following a valid argument?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Dear Mr. Bennett. I want to know if the following can be considered a valid argument:
1. Human action is purposeful behavior.
2. Trying to deny that human action is purposeful, would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance); in other words, you would have committed a performative contraction.
3. One cannot deny that action is purposeful.
Keywords:
When referring to the concept of "action is purposeful", I mean that action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals.
Will: Mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
Thank you for your time.
1. Human action is purposeful behavior.
2. Trying to deny that human action is purposeful, would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance); in other words, you would have committed a performative contraction.
3. One cannot deny that action is purposeful.
Keywords:
When referring to the concept of "action is purposeful", I mean that action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals.
Will: Mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
Thank you for your time.
Answers
1Hi Andrew!
Thanks for posting. It's much easier to see these in writing and address them this way :)
First, to answer your direct question... can the argument be valid. To be valid (in the strict sense), it a) needs to be deductive and b) the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises. Remember, that premises don't have to be true... for the purpose of establishing validity, we just assume an "if".
Some problems I see with this argument:
1) Ambiguity . Does one act of acting purposefully mean that "human action is purposeful behavior"? I don't think so. Are we talking "all" human behavior or just "some"?
2) The conclusion is missing "human" (i.e., human action)
3) Of course one can deny that (human) action is purposeful. What you mean is "One cannot deny that action is purposeful without being self-contradicting ."
So is it valid? Not the way it is currently written. To make it valid I would write:
1. Some human action is purposeful behavior.
2. The act of denying that human action is purposeful, would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance) ; in other words, you would have committed a performative contraction.
C. One cannot deny that human action is purposeful without acting purposefully and thus invalidating their own argument .
But remember, valid arguments are one checkpoint in determining truth. We can say that "If it is a pig it will fly. It is a pig. Therefore, it will fly." This is perfectly valid, but not sound (true). Much of human behavior (action) is automatic or occurs at the subconscious level and would not be purposeful in any meaningful sense. I suppose it could even be argued that it is possible for one to make that statement of denial out of pure reaction (no deliberation involved), which also calls into question the soundness.
Thanks for posting. It's much easier to see these in writing and address them this way :)
First, to answer your direct question... can the argument be valid. To be valid (in the strict sense), it a) needs to be deductive and b) the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises. Remember, that premises don't have to be true... for the purpose of establishing validity, we just assume an "if".
Some problems I see with this argument:
1) Ambiguity . Does one act of acting purposefully mean that "human action is purposeful behavior"? I don't think so. Are we talking "all" human behavior or just "some"?
2) The conclusion is missing "human" (i.e., human action)
3) Of course one can deny that (human) action is purposeful. What you mean is "One cannot deny that action is purposeful without being self-contradicting ."
So is it valid? Not the way it is currently written. To make it valid I would write:
1. Some human action is purposeful behavior.
2. The act of denying that human action is purposeful, would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance) ; in other words, you would have committed a performative contraction.
C. One cannot deny that human action is purposeful without acting purposefully and thus invalidating their own argument .
But remember, valid arguments are one checkpoint in determining truth. We can say that "If it is a pig it will fly. It is a pig. Therefore, it will fly." This is perfectly valid, but not sound (true). Much of human behavior (action) is automatic or occurs at the subconscious level and would not be purposeful in any meaningful sense. I suppose it could even be argued that it is possible for one to make that statement of denial out of pure reaction (no deliberation involved), which also calls into question the soundness.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course