Can you expand on "how torturing is used to stop an attack on a nation", is connected to the statement "torture is permissible to a person"?
Write: Present your two arguments (one on each side of the issue) in standard form (with each premise and conclusion on a separate line) on the topic you selected from the PHI103 Final Paper Options list. The two arguments should defend different positions on the topic. For example, if your topic was the existence of Santa Claus, then you would present one argument for the claim that Santa Claus does exist and another argument that Santa Claus does not exist. The premises of each argument will present reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true.
Here is an example of what an argument in standard form looks like:
Premise 1: If Santa Claus exists, then he lives at the North Pole.
Premise 2: No one can live at the North Pole.
Conclusion: Santa Claus does not exist.
For each argument, provide a brief explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You might explain whether the argument is inductive or deductive, or you might provide a diagram of the argument. Think about how the two arguments compare to each other. Is one better than the other? If so, what makes that one better? Is each a fair presentation of what someone taking that position would say? Are the premises reasonable? How might each argument be made better?
Topic: Is it ever permissible to torture a person
ARGUMENT 1
Premise 1: If torturing is used to stop an attack on a nation, then torture is permissible to a person
Premise 2: Torturing a person can save millions of people
Conclusion: Therefore, it is permissible to torture a person
ARGUMENT 2
Premise 1: Torturing a person is morally wrong
Premise 2: Torturing a person just perpetuate the cycle of violent behavior
Conclusion: Therefore, it is not ever permissible to torture a person.
ARGUMENT 1
The strength of argument 1 is that the conclusion follows from the premise. If we accept that torturing is permissible to stop terrorist and save lives, then it is ever permissible to torture a person.
The weakness of Argument 1 is that a person could argue that premise 2 is untrue. Torturing a person does not always mean that lives are going to be saved. Just because you torture someone does not always mean you are going to answers.
ARGUMENT 2
The strength in argument 2 is that the conclusion follows the premises. If we accept that to torture a person is wrong and all it does it keep the cycle of violence going, then it is not ever permissible to torture a person.
The weakness in argument 2 is that we don't have to accept that torture is not permissible to a person, even if we accept the premise as being true. Just because I may think it's morally wrong, doesn't mean that what I think true.
Think about how the two arguments compare to each other. Is one better than the other? If so, what makes that one better?
Argument 1 is better because it is more effective and more convincing. Assuming that accepted the premises to be true, the conclusion must be accepted as true. That torture is permissible to a person if it is used to stop an attack on a nation to save millions of lives.
•Is each a fair presentation of what someone taking that position would say? YES
•Are the premises reasonable? YES
•How might each argument be made better? Any argument can be made better the more you can prove your point.