JudgeExplorationGorilla13
Reply to this paragraph: In logic, an argument is considered…
Reply to this paragraph:
In logic, an argument is considered valid when the conclusion logically follows and flows from the premises (Copi et al., 2016). So, if the premises are valid and assumed to be true, then so is the conclusion (Copi et al., 2016). An invalid argument is when the conclusion does not follow the premises or there is a flaw or fallacy (Copi et al., 2016). Also, the conclusion can be true but invalid if the conclusion is not logically ensured by the premises; there must be a logical, flow connection (Copi et al., 2016).
A common argument is the death penalty, those for and against it and if it can be morally justified.
For this argument, the position is: the death penalty is morally justifiable in certain cases, such as for crimes like murder.
The counterargument is: The death penalty is morally wrong and conflicts with the belief of valuing the gift of life.
Major premise: taking someone’s life is morally wrong and goes against the belief of valuing the gift of human life.
Minor premise: the death penalty involves purposefully taking a person’s life.
Conclusion: Therefore, the death penalty is morally wrong and should be rejected.
The premises and conclusion are proposition “A” universal affirmative because they make the universal claim, and the predicate affirms the subject. In this argument, all acts of intentionally taking someone’s life are morally wrong. The death penalty involves intentionally taking someone’s life. Therefore, the death penalty is morally wrong. The argument is valid because the premises are true, and the conclusion logically follows.
In response to this counterargument, a person who believes the original position (the death penalty is morally justifiable in certain cases, such as for crimes like murder) could argue a few points. For example, the first response could be that the severity of the crime warrants the death penalty punishment – like serial killers for example. Another response could be justice for the victims. The death penalty could be argued as morally wrong; what about the morality of the crime they committed and the victim/victim’s family? Public safety is another response as it could be argued the criminal is a risk to society and the death penalty would remove this risk. Although not current, an example that comes to mind is Ted Bundy escaping. Finally, responding with a fair trial to ensure the criminal truly deserves the death penalty as well as alternative punishments like life without parole can also achieve a similar sense of justice for both sides.
Both the original position and counterargument are valid based on the conclusion following the premises. Providing equally logical and valid responses and avoiding fallacies are necessary to effectively argue one’s position.
