Structuring and Philisophical Reasoning to Include In Essays

Question 1

Deductive reasoning

Answer 1

A deductive argument is one where the premises (steps) are supposed to logically garentee the conclusion. Another word for this, is a logically valid argument

Question 2

Valid Argument

Answer 2

A valid Argument is one where, if the premises (steps) are true, the conclusion must be true as well

For example:
1. If Lupa is a Dog, then Lupa is a mammal
2. Lupa is a dog
3. Therefore, Lupa is a mammal

Because the argument is valid, it means it’s impossible for the conclusion (3.) to be false, if the premises above (1. And 2.) are true. - it would be illogical to agree with 1 and 2, but disagree with 3

Question 3

Just because an argument is valid, doesn’t mean it’s conclusion is true….

Answer 3

If an argument is valid, it’s about the structure of the argument - not the truth of the premises. It’s possible to have a valid argument with false premises (steps) and a false conclusion

For example:
1. If Lupa is a dog, then the moon is a tennis ball
2. Lupa is a dog
3. Therefore, the moon is a tennis ball

This argument is still valid - the conclusion does follow logically from the premises - but the premises and conclusion are clearly false.
So, the argument is valid, BUT not sound. A sound argument is one that is logically valid and where the premises are true

Question 4

Examples of Valid Arguments in Philosophy

(EPISTEMOLOGY)

Answer 4

EPISTEMOLOGY:
1. The Gettier Argument (Knowledge)
2. The Argument from Illusion (Perception)
3. The Argument from Perceptual Variation (perception)
4. Berkeley’s Master Argument (Perception)

Question 5

Examples of Valid Arguments

(MORAL PHILOSOPHY)

Answer 5

MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
1. The Trolly Problem (Utillitarianism)
2. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (universalibility)
3. Moores OpenQuestion Argument (Meta Ethics)
4. Hume’s Is-Ought Gap (Meta Ethics)

Question 6

How to include ‘valid argument’ in an essay

Answer 6

The argument used is a logically valid argument because the conclusions follow necessarily from the premises, if the premises are true

You can say in an Essay:
“This is a valid argument because the conclusion logically follows from the premises, even if we might challenge its assumptions.”

Question 7

Valid Argument: The Gettier Argument

Answer 7

Why valid: Uses examples (e.g. “Smith and Jones”) to show that a belief can be justified and true without being knowledge. The reasoning from premises to conclusion is logically sound.

Use: To argue that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.

Question 8

Valid Argument: The Argument from Illusion

Answer 8

Why valid: Shows that illusions make us misperceive reality, so we don’t perceive objects directly. The structure from perception to doubt of direct realism is logically coherent.

Use: Against direct realism.

Question 9

Valid Argument: The Argument from Perceptual Variation

Answer 9

Why valid: Different people perceive the same object differently (e.g. colour, shape), so the conclusion that we perceive sense data rather than the object itself follows.

Use: To support indirect realism or idealism.

Question 10

Valid Argument: Berkeley’s Master Argument

Answer 10

Why valid: If it’s impossible to conceive of a mind-independent object (because as soon as you conceive it, it’s in your mind), then mind-independent objects don’t exist. Logically consistent.

Use: To support idealism.

Question 11

Valid Argument: The Trolley Problem

Answer 11

Why valid: Premise: We should maximise happiness. Killing 1 to save 5 does so. Therefore, we should kill 1. The conclusion follows logically from utilitarian premises.

Use: To show strength of consequentialism.

Question 12

Valid Argument: Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Answer 12

Why valid: If an action can’t be universalised without contradiction, then it’s not morally permissible. The argument is deductively valid within Kantian logic.

Use: To argue for duty-based ethics

Question 13

Valid Argument: Moore’s Open Question Argument

Answer 13

Why valid: If asking “Is pleasure good?” is an open (not tautological) question, then “good” ≠ “pleasure”. The conclusion logically follows.

Use: To reject moral naturalism.

Question 14

Valid Argument: Hume’s is-ought Gap

Answer 14

Why valid: If a conclusion is normative (what ought to be), but all premises are descriptive (what is), then the conclusion doesn’t follow logically. Valid structure.

Use: Against deriving morality from facts.

Question 15

Invalid Argument

Answer 15

An Invalid Argument is an argument where it’s possible for the premises to be true, but the conclusion to be false

For Example:
1. If Lupa is a Dog, then Lupa is a Mammal
2. Paris is then the capital of France
3. Therefore, Lupa is a Mammal

This arguement is obviously invalid - the conclusion (3) does not follow the premises (1 and 2). Even if all the premises are true and the conclusion is, the structure of the argument is NOT valid

Question 16

Example of non-obvious, invalid argument

Answer 16

This argument is logically invalid:
1. If lupa is a Dog, then Lupa is a mammal
2. Lupa is a Mammal
3. There Lupa is a dog

The premises (steps) and conclusion is all true, but this argument is invalid. The reason is because it’s possible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion to be false, because lupa is a dog, but just because an animal is a mammal, doesn’t mean it’s a dog.

Question 17

An Argument that can be considered Invalid

Answer 17

Trademark Argument – Argument for the existence of God

Argument (simplified):
I have an idea of a perfect God.
This idea must have been caused by something as perfect as the idea itself.
Only God could be that cause.
∴ God exists.

Problem:
The leap from the idea to its cause having to be real is not logically necessary.
It assumes causation of ideas must reflect reality, which is not established.

Validity: ✖ Likely invalid, or at best questionably valid with shaky hidden premises.

Question 18

Inductive Reasoning

Answer 18

Whearas a deductive argument is supposed to logically guarantee its conclusion.
An inductive argument is where the premises only provide support for the conclusion
For example:
1. Most Dogs have 4 legs
2. Lupa is a Dog
3. Therefore, Lupa probably has 4 legs

The premises of this argument (1+2), provide support for the conclusion (3) BUT does not logically guarantee it. E.g. Lupa may have lost a leg somehow, and only have 3 legs. So an argument with good inductive reasoning will show the conclusion is probably true, and not certainly true - can be strong or weak - depending on the evidence

Question 19

Epistemology: example of inductive reasoning

Answer 19

Problem of Induction (Hume)

Inductive reasoning at issue:
Premise: The sun has risen every day in the past.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Point: Hume critiques this reasoning — there’s no logical guarantee the future will resemble the past.

Question 20

Moral Philosophy: Mill’s proof of Utillitarianism

Answer 20

Mill’s Proof of Utilitarianism

Example (simplified):
Premise: People desire happiness.
Conclusion: Therefore, happiness is desirable and good.

Problem: Mill is using inductive reasoning from desire to moral value — and this has been criticised (e.g. Moore’s naturalistic fallacy), but it’s still inductive