Chapter 1: Arguments

Welcome to Philosophy

Why Arguments?

Students of philosophy often wonder what philosophy is or what philosophers do. I think that answering that second questions sheds light on the first. Philosophers deal with arguments. They make arguments. They criticize arguments. They challenge them. Then other philosophers tinker with the arguments, tweaking them, trying to improve them. A process of philosophy emerges by which poor arguments are shown to be lacking, are improved and retested, or are jettisoned.

When philosophers use arguments, they intend to learn something. They might end up with knowledge or they might become aware of their own ignorance. When we discover whether something falls within our knowledge or falls outside the limits of our knowledge, we establish foundations for wisdom. Wisdom, on this understanding, is operating with our knowledge and with our lack of knowledge (ignorance).

The pursuit of wisdom is key to philosophy. In fact, seeking to know or seeking whether we can know something is the other key part of philosophy. Philosophy, after all, comes from the Greek philos (love) and sophia (wisdom). It is in the philosopher’s commitment to epistemology (to study of knowledge and the limits of our knowledge) and then to live an ethical life (to live in accordance with knowledge and ignorance) that makes one a philosopher. And it is this process of loving wisdom that characterizes philosophy.

Because arguments are one of the key tools by which the philosopher explores metaphysics (the nature of reality), ethics, and epistemology, arguments are a great place to start thinking about philosophy. The study of arguments falls within a subcategory of philosophy called logic. Logic is like a language that infuses all the other branches of philosophy. Without a clear grasp on logic, we wander through philosophy without a guide.

Arguments Defined

Let’s begin with a definition of an argument. An argument is a set of claims, some of which are offered in favor of another. We’ll need at least two claims for an argument. One claim will be the one we’re trying to establish. We’ll call this the conclusion. The other, or others, however many there may be, are called premises. They’re the ones we use as evidence.

Claims are sentences, but not all sentences are claims. Claims are the subset of sentences that could be true. So, questions are sentences, but they’re not claims. Exclamations are sentences, but they’re not claims. Just those that look like declarative sentences are claims. Examples abound. The sky is blue. Humans are mortal. God is omnipotent.

This definition of an argument means that the pieces of an argument are defined functionally, by their role. The premises are offered as evidence, in order to support the conclusion. The conclusion is the one that we are to accept (or reject) on the basis of the evidence. These definitions give us some success conditions. In other words, good arguments will have pieces that do their job well, and bad arguments will have a piece or pieces that do not do their job well.

Truth/Plausibility

All premises are claims. Because all claims are not just sentences but sentences that can be true, a good claim is one that is true. A bad claim is one that is false. So, we can speak of claims in terms of how likely they are to be true. Better ones are more likely to be true; worse ones are less likely to be true. We can all the likelihood that a premise is true its plausibility.

Support

All premises are offered as evidence in favor of the conclusion. This means that a good set of premises offer appropriate support for the conclusion, while a bad set of premises does not offer appropriate support for the conclusion. Note that here I’ve switched from talking about a particular or single premise to the set of them, the collection of them. That’s because the premises do their work of supporting or failing to support collectively.

P1. If a car is cheap, then you should buy it.

P2. The Corolla is cheap.

C. So, you should buy it.

In this argument, P1 and P2 must be considered together to determine whether we should accept the conclusion. If P1 is true, but P2 isn’t true, then the argument gives us no reason to buy the Corolla. Likewise, if P2 is true, but P1 isn’t, then that argument gives us no reason to buy the Corolla. It’s only when they’re combined together that they give support – strong support, in fact – for the conclusion.

Deductive Support

Just as plausibility was a characteristic of an individual premise, the level of support the premises offer can be measured on a scale. If the premises are so tightly related to the conclusion that they guarantee its truth, then the premises provide necessary support for the conclusion. Arguments that aim for this standard are called deductive arguments.

Inductive Support

Some arguments do not aim to secure so high a standard. Sometimes premises are offered to increase the likelihood of the conclusion, to make it likely or probable that the conclusion is true. When premises work in this way, we say that they make the conclusion probable. Arguments that aim to make the conclusion probable are called inductive arguments.

Identifying Arguments

When you read philosophy, look for key words that signal conclusion. Words like “thus” or “therefore” are good keys. Once you find the conclusion, look for the evidence the author is offering. On the basis of which claim(s) should we accept the conclusion? Then, flesh out your argument with the appropriate premises.