PP217 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Assisted Suicide, Scapegoating, Consequentialism
Document Summary
It is the argument, the reason given for accepting the conclusion, that needs to be attacked. Here is a simple argument: xanthippe is a woman, women are mortal, therefore, xanthippe is mortal. The argument consists of 2 statements, or premises, which if both true will ensure that the conclusion is true. To counter-argue this example, we must not attack the conclusion, or the idea that. The first way to counter-argue this example would be to show that either. Xanthippe is not a woman, or that some women are not mortal. Second, we can try to show that even if both premises are true, the conclusion doesn"t follow: xanthippe is a woman, all dogs have tails, therefore, xanthippe has a tail. Clearly, the conclusion doesn"t follow it is a complete non sequitur. Some arguments fail in more subtle ways, of course. It is rare that arguments are as clear as the examples above.
