The content in parenthesesis supposed to justify the truth of premises 2 and 3. Thatâs why I put it there. My question is: Since these premises are true, does the conclusion logically follow? You say it does. Itâs just seems like an odd conclusion to come to. Itâs hard for me to believe. I believe the premises are true, but find the conclusion hard to believe. Thatâs why Iâm questioning itâs validity.
Whatâs wrong with the justification in parentheses that proves premises 2 and 3, then?
browser, buddy - you have some ill-defined ideas, here. Firstly, if the government states that private citizens should not kill, except under certain circumstances, but that the government itself may do so, there is no hypocrisy in that. Or if there is, youâd have to argue for it, because that isnât obvious. Hypocrisy is pretense, and not merely utilizing different kinds of agency for different classes.
You said it yourself. Murder is a form of killing, but not the only one. If the government enforces capital punishment and war then it does not âsayâ no one should ever kill. AlsoâŚIâve never heard of any government that prohibits people from defending themselves if necessary.
Not necessarily. If she had said âNo one should ever smoke.â then that would be pretty clear hypocrisy. If she has a reason why she can smoke and you shouldnât then itâs not hypocrisy.
I agree with fuse, but parents are a special case. Parents outright lie to their kids all the time. And just being a parent seems to me to require hypocrisy, at least by your definition. I think you want to reserve the term âhypocrisyâ for another usage. Think of the gangbanger who knows that some day, he is likely to meet a violent end, or to be incarcerated for a very long time. Donât we hope that he tells his son not to follow in his footsteps?
Just some advice - before you get to the point of being a master logician, you might want to make sure that your premises are clearly formed, and that you are fully aware of the assumptions they are based on. Most of all, you want to be a master of language before you can be a master of logic.
Thatâs really just friendly advice. Valid arguments are a dime a dozen. Good philosophical arguments are exceedingly rare. Philosophy is firstly about assumptions, secondly about very precise statements of ideas, and only lastly about arguments.
I know how to philosophize, thank you very much. Raise the bar, guys. My argument is presented very formally. Itâs one of the best ways it can be presented. Or at the very least, it should be.
Premise 2 is true: The government kills people. It killed Nazis and Japanese in WWII. End of story.
Premise 3 is true: The government tells us not to kill. There are laws against murder, and murder is a form of killing. End of story.
So, the government is hypocritical. It kills, but tells us not to. That is hypocrisy.
I donât know how much clearer I can make this. Really, guys.
If thereâs a problem, itâs not the truth of the premises. They are true. Itâs the validity of the argument.
Youâre inflating what theyâre actually telling us illogically. They tell us not to murder, yes, but thatâs not the same as âdonât kill in general at all.â Murder fits in the larger category of killing, and killing fits in the larger category of (choosing one at random right now hrmmmâŚ) interacting with other humans. So if I followed your logic, and whatever they apply to one category of action they must apply to all categories that that category fits in, the government must also be telling us not to interact with other humans if they tell us not to killâŚ
hopefully that was a brief lesson on the irrationality of inflating things about one category into things about their containing categories.
This argument is simpleminded. Putting numbers in front of your sentences doesnât make it a formal proof. That said, construed in itâs simplest disambiguated form it can be said to be valid, though ultimately dumb.
Once again, as I just showed in my last post, Premises 2 and 3 are true. Youâre saying thereâs something wrong, either with one of them or with both of them. Thatâs precisely where you are wrong.
So what? Specifically how does that undermine my argument? I outlined my argument very clearly, espically in my last post. Feel free to look back. Now how does this quote of yours undermine my specific argument? What is wrong with my specific argument?
I donât quite understand your syntax here, but I think I know what youâre trying to say. Youâre saying that according to my logic, telling us not to murder is a form of telling us not to âkill in general at all.â Thatâs NOT my logic. My logic is: telling us not to murder is a form of telling us not to kill - period. That much is true, and thatâs as far as I go in my argument.
True. Killing is a form of interacting with other humans. So, telling us not to kill is a form of telling us not to interact with other humans. The government tells us not to kill, thus it tells us not to interact with other humans. Itâs true. The latter is a form of the former.
If the government tells us not to look at squares, itâs implicitly telling us not to look at rectangles as well. It may not be telling us not to look at rectangles of any kind, but itâs still telling us not to look at rectangles. Itâs telling us not to look at a specific type of rectangle. But I donât need to specify that. If Iâm looking at a square, Iâm looking at a rectangle. I donât need to say Iâm looking at a specific type of rectangle.
So, as the argument form goes, you, Flannel Jesus, have found yet another way that the government is hypocritical.
My question remains: Is this a valid argument form? I have seemingly successfully argued in support of it, but remain somewhat skeptical and unconvinced. Thatâs why I inquired the help of you all by making this thread.
you canât apply things upwards categorically browser. it only works the other way. thatâs where youâre going wrong here.
what applys to all rectangles applies to all squares, but what applies to squares may not apply to all rectangles. you seem to be aware of this in one sense, but when it comes to rules, you reverse categorical applications. it doesnât make sense. i donât know why you think that. can you explain why youâre working backwards through categories like that?
The argument is invalid. The invalidity is in the difference between âthe governmentâ and âusâ. The following three arguments are all valid:
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) The government kills.
(3) The government says that governments should not kill.
Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) Person X kills.
(3) Person X says that people should not kill.
Therefore, (4) Person X is hypocritical.
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) Agent X kills.
(3) Agent X says that agents should not kill.
Therefore, (4) Agent X is hypocritical.
But the following argument is invalid:
(1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another.
(2) Agent X kills.
(3) Agent X tells other agents not to kill.
Hi browser. Its really this simple (are you paying attention? good):
The meaning of âkillâ is different in premise 2 than in premise 3. The government kills people means: war, death penalty (your examples). The government tell us not to kill means: not to murder (legally determined to be an unlawful and intentional killing).
You donât get to have your cake and eat it too. The premises are not talking about the same thing, therefore there is logical disconnect, lack of total overlap in premises, therefore the argument is not valid (or sound), UNLESS you rework it to mean âkillâ in the EXACT same sense among all premises.
Is a person responsible for their actions?
Is the law of reciprocity valid?
Thus if someone does unto me, what I have done, who is responsible if my life is taken for what I have done, the taker of that life, or me?
Your argument is fallacious because you negated the whole idea of reciprocity.
Well both of them have already basically been stated. But just to beat the dead horse.
Outside of sentence three having issues of the agent telling other agents, and not declaring all agents, you also have a problem of equivocation.
You utilize the word âkillâ in sentence 2 - establishing the meaning by âjustified killingâ
You utilize the word âkillâ in sentence 3 - establishing the meaning by âunjustified killingâ
But according to the agent, justified killing =/= unjustified killing.
The government tells us not to murder. Generally governments allow for some types of killing: self-defense, and, of course, killing in war.
There may be ways the government justifies killing in war that end up being hypocritical, but itâs much more complicated than this schema allows for.