What do you guys think about this argument against the riots?

Question

Trevor	What do you guys think about this argument against the riots? Remember, im not making this argument, im just re-saying it to you guys so i can now you thoughts, the argument usually goes like this: The riots are causing many buildings to be destroyed. Destruction is bad. (implied) Therefore the riots are bad. So what do you guys think?
	asked on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 01:35:07 AM by Trevor
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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

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

Bo Bennett, PhD 2	These life-saving antibiotics cause diarrhea. Diarrhea is bad. Therefore, life-saving antibiotics are bad. Form: A (diarrhea) is part of group B (life-saving antibiotics). A has the property X (bad). Therefore, B has the property X. This is a classic Fallacy of Composition . A note about this fallacy: the form is fallacious, not necessarily the conclusion. Murder causes suffering. Suffering is bad. Therefore, murder is bad. Technically, fallacious in form no matter how right it sounds. Murder is bad (most would agree) because of the overall reduction to well-being. We can think of times we suffer for the greater good (like surgery). This can get us into deep philosophical discussion about moral reasoning, but for the sake of that discussion, let's say the foundation is well-being.
	answered on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 07:07:37 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories
Comments

Bryan

Premise 2 isn't necessarily true, so this isn't valid.

answered on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 10:13:52 AM by Bryan

Bryan Suggested These Categories

Comments

0	Jason Mathias writes: Yep, creation and destruction are two ends of the same stick. In order for something to be created, another thing had to be destroyed, and for something to be destroyed, another thing has to be created.
	posted on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 08:10:01 PM

	0	Bryan writes: [To Jason Mathias ] Sure that's an angle which I didn't consider. Cutting down a tree could be considered destruction, and then all sorts of good things can be made from it. I was just thinking purely from the point of view of destruction to remove something. Is destroying a wasps nest in your attic a bad thing? Or destroying a derelict building? Is destroying a culture of racism bad?
		[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 08:18:56 PM

	0	Jason Mathias writes: [To Bryan] The main difference between what we call creation and destruction (besides order and disorder), is our bias towards the change thats taking place. If we like the change thats happening and its useful to us, then we call it creation, if we dislike the change thats happening, we call it destruction.
		[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 09:50:55 PM

DrBill 0	As I understand the argument, there are so many issues, it's hard to pick out just one. 1. The riots are causing many buildings to be destroyed. Is it true? If it's true, are there any occasions in which buildings' destruction is acceptable? Are any of the acceptable occasions relevant to rioting? Can people destroy buildings without consequences? Does the answer depend on any legal matters (ownership, permitting eg). 2. Destruction is bad. (implied) Relating to part of 1, is all destruction bad? If there are exceptions, are any consistent with the process of rioting? 3. Therefore the riots are bad. If, after review of 1 and 2, the facts of destruction are known, the legal issues of buildings' ownership and permitting do not support the process, and the exceptions in 2 are not consistent with the process of rioting, I'd say the conclusion is inescapable.
	answered on Thursday, Jul 16, 2020 01:30:06 PM by DrBill
DrBill Suggested These Categories
Comments