Logic, Critical Thinking, & Fundamental Principles

idk guys

Political Argument for Human Dignity

Most political societies and governments agree that humans have value that should be protected. There are laws that prohibit the violation of particular human rights (including that of life itself), and these laws are often relatively consistent among different societies.

Human Nature-based Argument for Human Dignity

Humans understand, reflect on their place in, and freely engage in the world, unlike other animals. We have rationality, which hints that we have intrinsic value as well because we are above other animals in this way.

Soul-based Argument for Human Dignity

Humans have the ability to abstract or understand general ideas given specifics. It is widely believed that this spiritual ability to recognize things such as beauty comes from a spiritual component to us known as the soul. If this is true, part of us would be quasi-divine, and we would be infinitely valuable for it.

Self-Centered Argument for Human Dignity

We all get hurt when someone trespasses on one of our rights or does something to hurt us. This stems from a belief that our lives have value, which would in turn mean that others do as well.

Equality-based Argument for Human Dignity

Many believe in equal human rights, but this belief must be based on a characteristic we all share to make us worthy of these equal rights. This shared characteristic is our human nature, which gives us the dignity to be worthy of equal rights despite our other differences.

Christian Response to Suffering

Although it may seem like God isn’t real or isn’t good because suffering exists, Christianity states that Jesus Christ is the answer to this problem of suffering. God could will it to build character, to unleash love, or to wake one from the dream of self-sufficiency. Jesus was innocent and suffered, and so those suffering can connect their pain to His and make it redemptive. As Viktor Frankl says in “Man’s Search for Meaning”: “Those who have a ‘why’ to live can bear with almost any ‘how’.”

Intrinsic Evil

Characteristic an action must have to state that it never ought to be done, regardless of intentions or circumstances. This would make an act incompatible with the dignity of the human person.

“Per Se” Good

Characteristic an action must have to state that it is usually always good to do. These acts may be good in themselves, but bad intentions or circumstances can deem them inappropriate in some situations.

Moral Neutrality

Characteristic an action must have to state that it is in itself neither a good nor bad thing to do. Most actions fit this category. Sometimes the intention or circumstance behind these acts can change whether the act as a whole within the situation is good or bad.

Prudential Judgement

Thought process to use when deciding between actions involving no intrinsic evils and the actions could lead to many possible good outcomes. You must pay attention to multiple factors in each situation.

Logic

The study of correct reasoning and the process of offering arguments for positions that prove the position’s point by appealing to reason.

Deductive Argument

Type of argument where the conclusion is guaranteed should the premises be true. These arguments are characterized by their validity (truth of conclusion based solely on premises) and their soundness (truth of premises in question).

Inductive Argument

Type of argument where the conclusion is probably should the premises be true. These arguments are characterized by their cogency.

Principle of Double Effect

Instance where an action can have both a good and bad effect. For such an action to be morally justifiable, the action itself must not be intrinsically evil, the evil must not be the means of the good or the end goal, and the evil must be proportionate to the good to reasonably conclude it is a fair exchange.

Straw Man Fallacy

The deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument, making a weaker version of it.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

The utilization of an argument’s conclusion as its own premise. This creates an argument that goes in a circle and really proves nothing.

Ad Hominem

The attacking of the person making an opposing argument instead of the actual argument itself, usually by means of discrediting or criticizing them.

Post Hoc Fallacy/False Causation

The assumption that an event causes another solely because the first event took place before the second. This falls into the “correlation, not causation” trap and doesn’t actually prove that the first event was the direct cause of the second.

Loaded Question

The proposal of a question that includes the desired outcome of the one asking and goes against the position of the one intended to answer it.

False Dichotomy

The presentation of only two extremes in a sector where various options of approaching it exist, thus artificially limiting the range of possible outcomes.

Equivocation

The deliberate changing of the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument, playing with multiple meanings of the word. This is the use of language to mislead or avoid a clear position on the matter.

Appeal to Authority

The proclamation that something is true because an expert said so.

Appeal to Popular Opinion

The proclamation that something is true because most people believe it, ignoring the fact that the majority opinion does not equate to truth.

Hasty Generalization

The formation of a claim without using unbiased or sufficient evidence to support it. These are made quickly and without evidence, unlike typical generalizations which only signify that the presented evidence does not support the claim at hand.

Self-Referential Incoherence

The formation of a statement that contradicts itself.

Tu Quoque

The deflection of criticism by point out the opponent’s hypocrisy.

Ad Baculum/Appeal to Force

The utilization of threats or force instead of reason.

Ad Ignominiam/Appeal to Shame

The utilization of shame or embarrassment to win an argument.