Phil 106 (Vailati) Strengthen/Weaken an argument or a position

An important component of one’s logical skills is constituted by the ability to tell what strengthens or weakens an argument or a position. For example, consider the following argument:

Society is constituted by people who do not just live together but also share views on how one should lead one’s life. These views constitute the morals of society. Without them, society would weaken and become unable to resist serious challenges. As no society can be required to commit suicide, any society has the right to defend its common morality. Family values are at the core of our shared moral views, and their crisis is the cause of the sad state of our society. Consequently, as family values demand the subordination of women to their fathers, husbands, or brothers, we should oppose extending voting rights to women. Indeed, suffragists should be severely punished because their activities strike at the very foundations of our society.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument?

1. Different societies have differ morals

2. Some women are very independent

3. Many philosophers think that women should have the right to vote

4. Family values are passed from parents to children

5. No satisfactory argument has been presented to show that family values demand that women don’t vote.

The answer is (5). Let’s see why. (1) is irrelevant to the argument because the conclusion is about our society. (2) is also irrelevant because these independent women may be from other societies or one of the causes of the crisis of our society. (3) may be relevant, but there is no indication that philosophers understand our family values or that they believe that our society deserves to continue to exist. (4) states how family values are transmitted, not what their content is. (5) says that there is no clear evidence that family values entail that women should not vote, and goes to the heart of the argument. The proponent of the argument does not show that family values require that women don’t vote.

Now consider the following argument A:

According to the Property Argument, God retains the property of our lives, and therefore suicide, even to avoid great pain and suffering, is wrong because it involves the destruction of somebody else’s property. However, the Property Argument fails. Property rights are not fundamental, and therefore one’s suicide to end or prevent one’s severe suffering would not be morally wrong even if our lives belonged to God. Christians do a disservice to their position by appealing to the Property Argument.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen argument A?

1. God is our maker

2. Many theologians do not like the Property Argument

3. For some, God does not exist

4. If your car is crushing or close to crushing my legs, I am morally justified in ripping it apart even if I cannot pay you back

5. Committing suicide to save the lives of others is morally permissible

The answer is (4). Here’s why. Argument A states and criticizes another argument, the Property Argument, by saying that even if the premises of the Property Argument were to be accepted, the conclusion would not follow. With that in mind, note that (1) is irrelevant; it is true that the fact that God is our maker would partially explain why He owns our lives, but argument A claims that even if that were to be true suicide would still be permissible to avoid severe suffering. (2) is marginally relevant at best; that many theologians dislike the Property Argument provides some initial evidence that it may be weak, but that’s all. Theologians make mistakes. (3) is irrelevant for reasons analogous to those for (1). (4) is directly relevant and provides evidence for the backbone of argument A, namely that property rights are subordinated to the elimination or prevention of severe suffering. (5) also strengthens argument A because it shows that God’s property rights oven one’s life can be overridden; however, it does so less that (4) because it applies only to saving the lives of others, not to ending or preventing one’s own suffering.