Cоnsider the fоllоwing text: In every system of morаlity, which I hаve hitherto met with, I hаve always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature Task: 1. Identify the issue of the argument 2. Identify the conclusion of the argument 3. Standardize the argument
Reаd аll Directiоns Cаrefully Cоnsider the fоllowing text: Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically. (...) I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed. It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago. -Judith Jarvis Thomson, from “A Defense of Abortion” Directions: 1. Respond to each Task item, numbered and in full sentences (where appropriate). 2. When asked to explain your reasoning, make sure you are as clear and thorough as possible. Brief, shallow, and unsupported answers will lose points. Task: 1. Standardize the main argument (Note: As always, you will use the standard form taught in this course. If you are standardizing an inductive argument of a form you learned in Week 4, you should refer to Week 4’s instructional materials for more details). 2. Is the argument of a known inductive form (Week 4)? If so, which one? Explain your reasoning. 3. Does the argument commit a known fallacy (Week 3)? If so, which one? Explain your reasoning. 4. Evaluate the strength of the strength of the argument. In your evaluation... If the argument commits a known fallacy, explain how egregious the fallacy is. Does the argument support its conclusion at all? Could the argument be improved by a simple revision? Explain your reasoning. If the argument is of a known inductive form, assess it according to every evaluative criterion taught in Week 4. For each assessment, you should explain your reasoning. Having done the above, give a final verdict on the argument: Strong or Weak (if dealing with an argument not of a known inductive form) or Cogent or Not Cogent (if dealing with an inductive argument).