Answer the two questions with the following reading below.
The first inference of the argument is: "One must not value all opinions but some and not others. Therefore, one must not value the opinions of all people, but of some and not others."
Question 2
The question about soundness is this: Is it true that one must not value all opinions but some and not others?
Question 3
The question of validity is this: Assuming that one must not value all opinions but some and not others, is this a reason to believe that one must not value the opinions of all people, but of some and not others?
One of the first things to notice about the argument
is that some of the premises are unsupported. That
is, though many of the premises in the argument are
themselves conclusions of arguments and are therefore
supported (well or ill) by previous premises, some
premises are not themselves supported as conclusions.
This, of course, is inevitable since an argument has
to begin somewhere. But if the initial, unsupported
premises are themselves not plausible, then the
soundness of the argument is brought into question.
So the most economical way to evaluate an argument
such as this rather complex one is to ask first about
the truth of its unsupported premises. If they seem
plausible, then we can turn to the question of the
validity of various inferential links.
A quick scan of the argument shows that there are five
unsupported premises: propositions 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12.
Are these propositions credible? They are:
Proposition 1: One must not value all opinions but
some and not others.
Proposition 3: Valuable opinions are those of people
who have knowledge ("are wise").
Proposition 6: Body and psyché are similar insofar
as each is susceptible of health and disease caused by
appropriate or inappropriate treatment.
(Appropriate: nutrition and exercise for the
body, and justice for the psyché.
Inappropriate: junk food and inactivity for the
body, and injustice for the psyché.)
Proposition 9: Life is not worth living when the
health of the body is ruined.
Proposition 12: The psyché is more valuable than the
body.
If any of these unsupported premises are not credible,
then the conclusions of the argument as it stands lose
their claim on our belief since their link with truth
is brought into question. If, in dialogue with
Socrates, you were to question one of the premises
that he has not argued for, then he would likely
respond with an argument to support that premise and
then invite you to criticize that new argument, or he
might invite you to produce an argument of your own
that concludes with the denial of one of his own
premises.
Are the inferential links valid? Not all of the links
need aspire to deductive certainty; some of them may
be inductive, if that would be appropriate to the
subject matter and the particular inference. But, of
course, there is a great deal here to look at, and a
complete discussion would carry us rather far. That
is why it would be useful, for present purposes, to
concentrate on just two or three of the links.
The first inference of the argument is: "One must not
value all opinions but some and not others.
Therefore, one must not value the opinions of all
people, but of some and not others."
2007-12-16
14:13:30
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy