The Support Question & The Content Question

 

Support question: “If the premise were true would that make the conclusion more likely to be true?

 

Content Question: are the premises “good.”

 

Arguments have practical use; persuasion.  Therefore premises need not only to be true but must be “good.”

 

1. true

2. clear (free from vagueness or ambiguousness)

3. reasonable (non-controversial, un-contentious, plausible.)

 

Truth:

 

Formal Logic is chiefly concerned with the support question.  But the task or critical evaluation of an argument and therefore being a critical thinker requires more than a logical analysis alone.

 

To establish whether we should believe the conclusion of the argument we must do more than a simple logical analysis. We need to do something more then look support (whether the premises would support the conclusion if true).

 

We must also determine whether the premises are true or not.  (Do science, history, law, etc.)  But determining whether the premises are true or not is not part of logic.

 

Clarity:

 

Remember that the point of an argument is to persuade.  Therefore it is not enough that the premises be true.  They must also be understood.  If premises are vague, we cannot know whether they are true or not and the argument will be unpersuasive.

 

Reasonableness:

 

Remember that the point of an argument is to persuade.  Therefore it is not enough that the premises be true.  They must also be accepted by the person at whom the argument is directed.  If claims are controversial then it will diminish the ability of the argument to persuade.

 

While whether a sentence is clear or reasonable will depend in large part on who is listening, truth does not.

 

Argument for Analysis:

 

      "Killing animals for food, causes unnecessary pain and suffering"

      "Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is wrong"

therefore,

      "Killing animals for food is wrong"

 

Support Question:

 

            1. If premises were true would they make the conclusion more likely to be true?

 

Yes. In fact, the argument above is Deductively Valid; (This argument form is called “Barbara”)

 

Content Question

 

            2. Are the premises good?

 

No.  Content (premises) not good.

 

Problems with Premise One:

 

      1. Pain to Whom? (Vagueness question)

      2. Unnecessary for what? (Vagueness question)

      3. Some or All? (Vagueness question)

      4. Who’s doing the killing? (Vagueness question)

      5. Maybe necessary for food.

            a. dietary reasons?

            b. circumstantial reasons?

      6. Maybe no pain.

            a. painless slaughter

            b. maybe animals don't feel pain

 

The initial argument has been proven unsuccessful, inadequate to establishing its conclusion. 

 

Note: This, in and of itself, constitutes philosophical progress.

 

But the conversation continues: (dialectic)

 

In response to vagueness objections (#1-4)

 

Suppose what a reasonable person would have probably meant where the argument is vague (unless you could simply ask the arguer).  This is called the Principle of Charity.

Extending A Charitable Interpretation to the Vague terms we might get this:

 

            1. “pain” to the animals.

            2. “unnecessary” for good human health and nutrition.

            3. All

            4. Human killing.

 

O.K.  now we have: New Argument

 

"All human killing of animals for food, causes pain and suffering to the animals which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition."

 

"All Causing pain and suffering which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition is wrong"

 

therefore

 

" All human killing of animals for food is wrong"

 

still good support but...

 

still #5 & #6 would defeat this version.

 

In responses to remaining objections (# 5 & 6)

 

 

5a: Involves an empirical (NOT philosophical question).   Science must decide if meat is necessary for good human health and nutrition or not. However, it has been shown that meat is unnecessary.

 

5b. This leaves the circumstantial question.  Historically meat was necessary when food supplies were limited and unreliable. But it is not necessary in modern industrialized nations who have year-round access to a wide variety of food stuffs.  Still this means that the Vegetarian must narrow his focus.

 

6a. Since it is true that we can and sometime do kill animals in a painless way, again the Vegetarian must narrow his focus.

 

6b. Dismiss this objection because animals have the biology to support conscious pain (unlike a tape recorder or a robot) and the behavior. (Problem of other minds)

 

O.K.  now we have: (New Argument)

 

"All human killing of animals for food, as practiced by the commercial meat industry (6a), in the 21st Century U.S. (5b), causes pain and suffering to the animals which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition."

 

"All Causing pain and suffering which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition is wrong"

 

therefore

 

" All human killing of animals for food, as practiced by the commercial meat industry, in the 21st Century U.S., is wrong"

 

The above represents Philosophy in method and content.  (Note: An ethical conversation (dialectic) which proceeds by theory postulation, justification, critical review and revision.

 

Epilogue:

 

Further revisions are still needed (what about clams and shrimp?) 

Also, be clear on what the argument establishes (if anything) and what it does NOT establish.

 

(e.g. Eating meat is wrong. - You could try to go there from where we are, but that would take a conceptual bridge, a new argument which would itself be subjected to critical review.)