(December 2, 2010 at 6:08 am)Arcanus Wrote: There are two tests an argument must satisfy in order to be persuasive: it must be valid and it must be sound. Validity is the primary or most important test because the truth of the premises has to logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion first, without which the truth of the premises is made irrelevant (by failing to justify the conclusion). This is why the other test, soundness, predicates itself on validity and is therefore the secondary test. In other words, an argument is valid whereby if the premises are true then the conclusion must be too, and it is sound whereby the argument is both valid and the premises actually are true. An argument that is valid and sound is therefore persuasive. [1] (Incidently, only arguments can be valid or invalid, not statements, and only statements can be true or false, not arguments. Validity pertains to reasoning, not propositions, while truth pertains to propositions, not reasoning.)
Not sure persuasion necessitates validity or soundness, either that or the sentence "I was persuaded by a bad argument" makes no sense, other than that Okay.
Quote:Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. I have analyzed this argument inside and out and I cannot detect a single flaw in it. Although the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be denied.
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.
And what is your proof for 1? Euthenasia for instance is the deliberate killing of an inocent human, yet not necessarily morally wrong, in fact I would argue that it's morally permissible.
Also, this could quite quickly become a debate about "what does it mean to be human" thus you'll need to clarify that. Assuming that you just mean "homo sapein" I would have to ask why does this argument stop at humans? What makes humanity special?
If humanity is "special" because of an attribute the argument would become something like "The deliberate killing of a creature who has attribute x is morally wrong" and then we would need to see if the fetus has this attribute.
You would also need to justify why the presence of that attribute(s) makes the deliberate killing of the innocent creature wrong.
Quote:The argument is perfectly valid; i.e., if the premises are true then it is impossible for the conclusion to not be. [4] So the question is, "Are the premises actually true?" The second premise is a concrete matter of fact, semantically and genetically, which leaves us with the truth-value of the first premise. Is it not true?
Is turning off the life support of a person unlikely to regain any normality not the deliberate killing of an innocent human?
I don't buy the claim that just because the killing is of a creature who is a homo sapein it is wrong, for me the values emerge from a certain type of mental functioning. Is it wrong to kill a being who has no values? I would argue not.
That aside, If there are any exceptions to 1 then it is not necessarily true that the deliberate killing of an inocent human is wrong, so your argument is not sound in that respect.
It might be good to address these concerns before I respond to the rest.
.
