David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Manuscript in Preparation (2012)
Besides pure declarative arguments, whose premises and conclusions are declaratives (“you sinned shamelessly; so you sinned”), and pure imperative arguments, whose premises and conclusions are imperatives (“repent quickly; so repent”), there are mixed-premise arguments, whose premises include both imperatives and declaratives (“if you sinned, repent; you sinned; so repent”), and cross-species arguments, whose premises are declaratives and whose conclusions are imperatives (“you must repent; so repent”) or vice versa (“repent; so you can repent”). I propose a general definition of argument validity: an argument is valid exactly if, necessarily, every fact that sustains its premises also sustains its conclusion, where a fact sustains an imperative exactly if it favors the satisfaction over the violation of the imperative, and a fact sustains a declarative exactly if, necessarily, the declarative is true if the fact exists. I argue that this definition yields as special cases the standard definition of validity for pure declarative arguments and my previously defended definition of validity for pure imperative arguments, and that it yields intuitively acceptable results for mixed-premise and cross-species arguments.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter B. M. Vranas (2011). New Foundations for Imperative Logic: Pure Imperative Inference. Mind 120 (478):369 - 446.
Hannah Clark-Younger (2012). Is Imperative Inference Impossible? The Argument From Permissive Presuppositions. In James Maclaurin (ed.), Rationis Defensor.
Peter B. M. Vranas (2008). New Foundations for Imperative Logic I: Logical Connectives, Consistency, and Quantifiers. Noûs 42 (4):529-572.
Peter B. M. Vranas (2010). In Defense of Imperative Inference. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (1):59 - 71.
Josh Parsons (2013). Command and Consequence. Philosophical Studies 164 (1):61-92.
Mark T. Nelson (2003). Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments? Argumentation 17 (1):35-42.
Tobias Henschen (2013). Kant's Pragmatism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (1):165 - 176.
Claude Gratton (2000). Counterexamples and Tacit Premises. Inquiry 20 (1):9-22.
Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part One). In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Christian George (1997). Reasoning From Uncertain Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 3 (3):161 – 189.
D. J. Shoesmith (1978). Multiple-Conclusion Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2011-07-07
Total downloads21 ( #67,485 of 1,008,812 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,218 of 1,008,812 )
How can I increase my downloads?