Pol 310- Prof Schroeder_ Purdue University (Exam One)

Argument

A set of claims (premises) that are offered in support of a conclusion, and a (conclusion) that is supported by said claims.

Deductive Argument

The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive Argument

The truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but suggests the conclusion is likely

Abductive Argument

Similar to an inductive argument, but the truth of the conclusion is more likely

Validity

The truth of the premises is necessary for the truth of the conclusion (this is not factually, just situationally)

Soundness

The argument is valid; and the premises are factually true (so the conclusion is also factually true)

How to assess a deductive argument…

1. Assess the validity of the argument

2. Asses the argument’s soundness

How to assess a non-deductive argument…

Inductive or Abductive arguments

— Call into question the premises and attempt to offer counterexamples

First Definition of Piety

Piety is “what I am doing right now”: prosecuting my father for his wrongdoings (pursuing justice is pious)

Socrates- argues that this is an example of piety and not the actual definition

Second Definition of Piety

Piety is what is dear to the gods

Socrates- argues that the gods constantly disagree, so what is dear to them is subjective

Third Definition of Piety

Piety is what all of the gods love; impiety is what all of the gods hate

Socrates- raises the Euthyphro Dilemma; Does God-love define piety, or follow from it?

The Euthyphro Dilemma 

Point 1- Is that which is morally good, good, because God commands it

Point 2- Is that which is morally good already morally good before God commands it (Does God command it because it is morally good?)

Does knowing the definition of something allow people to properly categorize it?

No! We can perceive things differently, so even if we think we “know” something our knowledge of it could be incorrect, therefore, we cannot properly categorize it.

The Divine Command Theory

Morality comes from God and moral persons follow the rules of God as laid out in the commandments and the Bible

The New Definition of Piety

“What is loved by all of the gods is pious”

— But is something loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods

(Something is carried because it is being carried not because it is actually carried)

Socrates- disagrees with this definition and says that Euthyphro is telling us what gods do with pious things, not what the definition of pious is

Socratic Practices

Asking for the definition of ethical and philosophical practices and then encouraging dialogue based on the definition by further questioning the provided definition of the practice. We see this when he questions Euthyphro about piety.

Early Accusers and their charge

The early accusers are the general public and playwrights

They charged Socrates with Naturalism (impiety/atheism), sophistry (making bad arguments appear good), and corrupting the youth

Defense against early accusers

General Strategy- maintains rationality and uses philosophical understanding

Alt explanation of behavior- Socrates tells the jury that he is the wisest among men because he can recognize his own ignorance (something other people cannot do)

Alt explanation of reputation- He thinks people hate him because he exposes their ignorance, embarrasses them in public, and young men imitate him

Formal Accusers and formal charges

General Strategy- Uses rationality and philosophical thinking

First Line of Attack- Refutes corrupting the youth

— One person alone cannot corrupt the youth, and if he corrupts it is unintentional

Second Line of Attack- Refutes the charge of impiety

— He believes in Daimonia, Daimonia is the belief that spirits are gods or children of gods, therefore he cannot be impious because he believes in spirits/divine agents

Third Line of Attack- Reframes his role as a public benefactor

— He is fulfilling a divine mission, and he is not corrupting he is offering a moral awakening

Five Reasons Socrates isn’t Ashamed

1. What matters is that Socrates is acting justly, avoiding death does not matter and is not in any way a priority for him.

2. He is following a divine command (daimonia) he obeys God not man.

3. Fear of death is based on ignorance.

4. He is a gadfly benefitting the city of Athens.

5. Silencing him or stopping his actions would harm the city of Athens, not benefit them.

Socrate’s Self-Conception

He believes he is a gadfly sent to “sting” the great and noble steed of Athens. He is keeping the people of Athens awake and alert through constant questioning and critique.

Two-Fold Purpose of Elenchus

1. Ask a question (e.g., “What is piety?”)

2. The interlocutor offers a definition or answer.

3. Socrates tests it through further questions, often using examples or counterexamples.

4. A contradiction or problem is revealed.

5. The definition is rejected, and the search continues.

The overall result of these steps is refutation (to test and expose false beliefs), and moral improvement (to stimulate the search for truth and virtue).

Daimonian

Socrates believes that he is on a divine mission from God and that he is always acting rightly because he is heaven-sent. He has a divine inner voice.

Socrates’ Views on Death

He believes that we shouldn’t fear what we don’t understand, and we don’t understand death. Death is either a dreamless sleep, or it is a journey to the afterlife— either way it isn’t something bad, so we shouldn’t spend our lives afraid of death.