Pro legalization argument and 2-3 page long WRITING ASSIGNMENT 1 Below, there are two different passages that contain arguments. One of them is an argumen

Pro legalization argument and 2-3 page long WRITING ASSIGNMENT 1

Below, there are two different passages that contain arguments. One of them is an argument for the claim that we should legalize drugs; this is the called the PRO-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT. The second is an argument for the claim that we should notlegalize drugs; this is called the ANTI-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT. Your assignment is to pick oneof these arguments and write a paper explaining what you think is wrongwith the argument. You should pick the argument that you disagreewith. For example, if you think that drugs should be legalized, then you should pick the ANTI-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT, and you should write a paper saying what’s wrong with that argument. And if you think that drugs should notbe legalized, then you should pick the PRO-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT, and you should write a paper saying what’s wrong with that argument.

In particular, whichever of the arguments you choose, you should (a) discuss which of the premises you think are false or questionable (especially those which are unsupported by other premises) and say why; and/or (b) discuss whether the various premises provide adequate support for their conclusions. You do not need to discuss every problem that you discover. You can discuss just oneproblem if you’d like; or if you’d rather, you can a discuss a few problems.

Your paper should be two-to-three page long, and double-spaced. It should be typed and written in complete, grammatically correct sentences. You should use proper punctuation and spelling. You can use whatever voice and style feels natural to you, but you need to remember who your audience is–namely, a college professor–and you need to use a tone that’s appropriate for that audience. Finally, remember to think about how to break your essay into paragraphs.

Also, students are to work alone on this project; no collaboration is permitted.

The most important Homework Set to do, in order to prepare for this writing assignment, is Homework Set XIX (at the end of Chapter 14). If you read the Solutions to Homework Set XIX, that will prepare you for writing the paper. In particular, for each argument in Homework Set XIX, there is a little discussion in the Solutions about the problems with the given argument. When you’re writing your paper, this is the sort of thing you want to do–you want to discuss the problems with the argument that you’re discussing.

How to Submit Your Paper: First of all, you should either write the paper in Microsoft Word or, if you use some other program to write your paper, you should save your file as an rtf file, i.e., a “rich text format” file. Thus, all papers should either be MS Word files or rtf files. Second, once you’ve written your paper, you should submit it as follows: Go to the “Writing Assignment 1” section of the course, click “Writing Assignment 1 File Submission”, and then follow the prompts to upload your paper.

******

PRO-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT

It is clearly time for us to legalize drugs in this country. There are two sorts of considerations here–namely, the moral and the practical–and both of them favor the legalization of drugs. In other words, it is morally unacceptable for the government to tell the citizens of this country that they cannot use drugs, and the legalization of drugs would generate pragmatic gains for us.

As far as morality is concerned, the decision to use or not use drugs is a personal one that does not directly impinge upon the rights of others, and the government should neverforbid activities that do not impinge upon the rights of others. Now, one might wonder why I say that drug use doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others; after all, one might (correctly) point out that the loved ones of a drug addict can be put through a great deal of unnecessary suffering, and society as a whole may have to foot the bill for the person’s rehabilitation. But I think this is irrelevant, because it seems to me that considerations of this sort are true of all sorts of behavior; in fact, this is true of anything that is dangerous. Driving on the freeways in L.A. is very dangerous and leads to a good many deaths and injuries; thus, it creates suffering in loved ones, and society as a whole is often called upon to pay for the medical expenses of those injured in accidents. The point is this: if you’re going to forbid drugs for the above reason, then you ought to forbid anything which is in the least bit dangerous.

Let’s move on to consider the pragmatic side of this issue. If drugs were legalized, it would help the economy in at least two ways. First of all, the government would no longer have to waste so much money on law enforcement, fighting drug-related crimes. And second, a whole new legal market would emerge, and therefore, jobs would be created, the Gross National Product would go up, and tax revenues would increase.

******

ANTI-LEGALIZATION ARGUMENT

In the last few years, there has been a disturbing movement in this country toward the legalization of drugs. This is a terrible idea. There are two different reasons for thinking that we should notlegalize drugs in this country. One of them is moral–it has to do with the role that government is supposed to play in our lives. And the second reason has to do with the consequences that legalization would have on our culture.

Let’s begin with the moral argument, and let’s ask ourselves this question: What is our government supposed to do? The answer seems obvious. It’s supposed to helpus. After all, it’s ourgovernment. We set it up to make our lives easier. But if our government is supposed to help us, then shouldn’t it be protecting us from the evils of drug addiction? Drugs are capable of literally ruining people’s lives. The government should protect its citizens from this, and the obvious way to do that is to forbid drug use. In short, the government cannot sit by and watch people ruin their lives with drugs.

The second argument against the legalization of drugs has to do with the consequences that legalization would have on our country. The first point that needs to be made here is that there would be much more drug use and drug abuse and drug addition, if drugs were legalized. Look how much drug abuse there is right now when it’s illegal. If it were suddenly legalized–if you could go into a grocery store and buy drugs in the same way that you can buy beer–then there would be ten times more drug use and drug addiction than there is right now. And that would lead to a general degradation of our culture–in short, more people would be addicts. Another point worth making here is that if drugs were legalized, it would increase crime. This would happen in at least three different ways: (i) people would commit more robberies in order to raise the money they needed to feed their addictions; (ii) people would commit more crimes because of their altered state of consciousness (in other words, more people would be getting high on drugs, and once they were high, they would commit more crimes); and (iii) more people would be driving while under the influence of drugs. Solutions to the problems in Homework Set XIX
NOTE: These problems can get very difficult. Don’t get too worried if you have a
hard time with these problems. Remember, first of all, that partial credit will be
given on the exam for these questions; thus, if you get the easy parts right and the
hard parts wrong, you will still get a significant number of points. And also
remember that these problems are difficult for all of the students and that you are
being graded relative to them. Just do the best you can do, and you will be fine.
Part A:
Instructions: Consider the following arguments, and do each of the following: (a) put
parentheses—i.e., ( )—around all words that are being used as conclusion indicators; (b)
put square-brackets—i.e., [ ]—around all words that are being used as premise
indicators; (c) put set-brackets—i.e., { }—around all words that are being used as
conjunction indicators; (d) put quotation marks—i.e., “ ”—around each statement and
number the statements in consecutive order; (e) show the structure of the argument by
means of a tree (i.e., circle-and-arrow) diagram; and (f) locate at least one basic premise
that is questionable, or unacceptable, and writing in complete sentences, say why it is
questionable or unacceptable.
1. Since God is all powerful and all good, everything He creates is as good as it could
possibly be. But God has created this world. Therefore, this is the best of all possible
worlds.
First, we prepare the argument for diagramming as follows:
{Since} (1) “God is all powerful and all good, (2) “everything He creates is as good as it
could possibly be.” {But} (3) “God has created this world.” (Therefore,) (4) “this is the
best of all possible worlds.”
Now the argument is set up for us to diagram it. The diagram is as follows:
(1)
¯
(2)———(3)
¯
(4)
This diagram is pretty easy. First of all, the word ‘Since’ is a premise indicator, and so it
tells us that (1) is a premise for (2). Next, the ‘But’ between (2) and (3) tells us that (2) and
(3) are on the same level of the diagram, playing the same role in the argument; and the
‘Therefore’ between (3) and (4) tells us that (4) is the conclusion of (2) and (3). Thus,
combining all of this, we learn that the diagram will look like this:
(1)
1
¯
(2)
(3)
(4)
But we still need to determine whether the argument in (2)-(4) is linked or convergent. To
determine this, we need to read the premises and decide whether they are providing two
different reasons to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s convergent) or whether they
are working together to provide a single reason to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s
linked). The answer is that it’s linked. The argument is essentially of the form “All A’s are
B’s; God’s creation of the world is an A; therefore, it’s a B.” So, again, the diagram is as
follows:
(1)
¯
(2)———(3)
¯
(4)
We now need to locate at least one basic premise that is questionable or unacceptable and
explain why it is questionable or unacceptable. The basic premises in this argument are (1)
and (3). (2) is a premise for (4), but it is not a basic premise, because it is supported by (1).
But (1) and (3) are both clearly controversial and questionable. In connection with premise
(1), we might say something like this:
“Premise (1) is questionable because it entails that there is a God, and so anyone who
doesn’t believe in God would reject (1). Moreover, (1) entails the existence of a specific
kind of God–namely, an all powerful, all good God–and so people who believe in Gods
of different kinds would reject (1) as well.”
In connection with premise (3), one could say something very similar. For instance, one
could say this:
“Premise (3) is questionable because it asserts that there is a God, and so anyone who
doesn’t believe in God would reject (3). Moreover, (3) asserts the existence of a specific
kind of God–namely, a world-creating God–and so people who believe in Gods of
different kinds would reject (3) as well.”
Note that one might explain why (1) and (3) are questionable in different ways and still get
the problem right. This is just one way to explain the point.
One might also doubt that (2) follows from (1); but that is an issue of support, and we were
not asked to discuss issues of support for this argument; we were asked to discuss the issue
of questionable basic premises.
2. If there is a God who created this world, then this is the best of all possible worlds; for if
2
there were a God then he would be all good and all powerful, and anything created by an allgood, all-powerful God would be as good as it could possibly be. But it is obvious that this
world is not the best of all possible worlds, because it contains people like Adolph Hitler
and Howard Stern. Therefore, it follows that there is no God who created this world.
First, we prepare the argument for diagramming as follows:
(1) “If there is a God who created this world, then this is the best of all possible worlds;”
[for] (2) “if there were a God then he would be all good and all powerful,” {and} (3)
“anything created by an all-good, all-powerful God would be as good as it could possibly
be.” {But} (4) “it is obvious that this world is not the best of all possible worlds,” [because]
(5) “it contains people like Adolph Hitler and Howard Stern.” (Therefore, it follows that)
(6) “there is no God who created this world.”
It wouldn’t really matter if you didn’t include ‘it follows that’ in the conclusion indicator
with ‘Therefore’. This is the best way to do it, but it would be fine if you included ‘it
follows that’ in statement (6) or simply left it out as background material.
Now the argument is set up for us to diagram it. The diagram is as follows:
(2)———(3)
(5)
¯
¯
(1)————(4)
¯
(6)
How can we figure this out? Well, the ‘and’ between (2) and (3) tells us that (2) and (3) are
on the same level of the diagram, playing the same role in the argument; and the ‘for’
between (1) and (2) tells us that (1) is the conclusion of (2) and (3). Thus, combining these
two pieces of information, we learn that the diagram of (1)-(3) will look like this:
(2)
(3)
(1)
But we still need to determine whether this argument is linked or convergent. To determine
this, we need to read the premises and decide whether they are providing two different
reasons to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s convergent) or whether they are
working together to provide a single reason to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s
linked). The answer is that it’s linked. To appreciate this, notice that (3) is more or less
equivalent to a certain if-then statement, namely, ‘If there’s an all-good, all-powerful God,
then anything he made would be as good as it could be’; but if we combine this with (2),
then, by hypothetical syllogism, we get this: ‘if there’s a God, then anything he made would
be as good as it could be.’ But statement (1) follows trivially from this. So the argument in
(1)-(3) gets diagrammed like this:
3
(2)———(3)
¯
(1)
Notice next that the ‘because’ between (4) and (5) tells us that (5) is a premise for (4) and,
hence, that (5) is pointing at (4) in the diagram. But how does this part of the argument
hook up the part in (1)-(3)? Well, notice that the word ‘But’ appears between (3) and (4).
This tells us that statement (4) is on the same level as the conclusion of the argument that
comes before (4), i.e., the argument in (1)-(3). The conclusion of that argument is statement
(1). Thus, ‘But’ tells us that (1) and (4) are on the same level of the diagram.
Moreover, the ‘Therefore, it follows that’ between (5) and (6) tells us that (6) is supposed to
follow from the conclusion of the argument that comes before (6), i.e., the argument in (4)
and (5). The conclusion of that argument is (4). Thus, together, the ‘But’ and the
‘Therefore, it follows that’ tell us that (1) and (4) are premises for (6). And so we get the
result that the argument is going to be diagrammed like this:
(2)———(3)
¯
(1)
(5)
¯
(4)
(6)
But we still need to determine whether (1) and (4) are linked or whether they are converging
on (6). To determine this, we need to read (1) and (4) and decide whether they are providing
two different reasons to believe (6), in which case the argument is convergent, or whether
they are working together to provide a single reason to believe (6), in which case the
argument is linked. The answer is that it’s linked. The argument is essentially just a modus
tollens, and so it is obviously linked. Thus, the overall answer is this:
(2)———(3)
(5)
¯
¯
(1)————(4)
¯
(6)
This diagram is pretty difficult because of the way that (1) and (4) link up to support (6).
It’s as if (2), (3), and (5) have been “skipped”, and this makes the problem difficult. But one
point you might have noticed that makes the problem easier is that the argument from (1)
and (4) to (6) is actually very obvious. As was pointed out above, it is a simple modus
tollens. And this is instructive: when you are trying to diagram arguments, you should keep
your eye out for simple arguments like this; if you see groups of statements that form
obviously valid argument forms–forms like “If P then Q; P; therefore Q”, and “If P then Q;
not-Q; therefore not-P”, and “All A’s are B’s; x is an A; therefore x is a B”, and so on–you
can be pretty sure that those statements should be diagrammed so that the two statements
that form the premises are linking up and pointing at the conclusion. If you notice this with
4
statements (1), (4), and (6), then this problem becomes a lot easier.
In any event, we now need to locate at least one basic premise that’s questionable or
unacceptable and explain why it’s questionable or unacceptable. The basic premises in this
argument are (2), (3), and (5). (1) and (4) are premises for (6), but they are not basic
premises, because they are supported by other statements.
Statement (5) is obviously true–this world clearly does contain people like Adolph Hitler
and Howard Stern–and so that premise is not questionable. However, premise (2) is clearly
controversial and questionable. One might explain this point as follows:
“Premise (2) is questionable because it assumes that there could be only one kind of
God, namely, an all good and all powerful God; thus, people who believe in Gods of
different kinds would reject (2), and so it is controversial.”
One might also argue that premise (3) is questionable. At first blush, (3) seems pretty
plausible. For it seems that if God is all-powerful, then he could make the world however
he wanted to; and it also seems that if He is all-good, then given that he could make
whatever sort of world he wanted to, he would make the best world. But one might question
(3) as follows:
“(3) is questionable. It might be that God thinks that the best worlds are those in which
the people in the world have free will. But as soon as people have free will, they are
going to be free to sin, and this will make the world imperfect and, hence, not as good as
it could possibly be. So (3) just isn’t true: even if God is all-good and all-powerful, it
doesn’t mean that anything He made would be as good as it could possibly be.”
It is, I think, much more difficult to pick up on this worry about (3) than the above worry
about (2). Students need to discuss only one questionable premise, so they don’t need to say
anything about (3). They can discuss (2) only, if they want to.
Finally, make sure, when you answer this question, that your discussion has to do with the
acceptability of the basic premises and not with the issue of whether the various premises
support their conclusions. That is, you should not attempt to argue that (2) and (3) don’t
support (1), or that (5) doesn’t support (4), or that (1) and (4) don’t support (6); for if you do
this, you will not be doing what the instructions for this question ask you to do.
3. The United States should not become so deeply involved in the affairs of other countries.
The reason is simple: we should mind our own business.
First, we prepare the argument for diagramming as follows:
(1) “The United States should not become so deeply involved in the affairs of other
countries.” [The reason is simple:] (2) “we should mind our own business.”
Given this, the diagram is entirely obvious. It is just this:
5
(2)
¯
(1)
Now we have to locate at least one questionable basic premise. Well, this is obviously
going to be (2), since it is the only premise in the argument. But the question is why (2) is
questionable. One might explain this as follows:
“There doesn’t seem to be any significant difference between (1) and (2). That is, (2)
says essentially the same thing as (1). Thus, since (1) is clearly controversial and
questionable, (2) is too.”
Once again, there are other ways to explain why (2) is questionable. This is just one way to
do it. Now, of course, this is not to say that anything you might say here would be correct.
It is rather to say that there are many different things you could say and still get it right.
Note that when the premise of an argument already assumes the conclusion–as is the case
with the argument in (1)-(2)–we say that the argument begs the question. In Chapter 12, we
studied some informal fallacies that have to do with a lack of support; there are also
informal fallacies that have to do with questionable premises, and one of them is called
begging the question. Argument number 3 is an instance of the fallacy of begging the
question.
Finally, make sure, when you answer this question, that your discussion has to do with the
acceptability of the basic premise and not with the issue of whether (2) supports (1); for if
you discuss the latter, you will not be doing what the instructions for this question ask you to
do.
4. Everything in the world is purely physical, and all physical stuff is made up entirely of
tiny physical particles. Therefore, everything in the world consists entirely of tiny physical
particles, and so human beings consist entirely of tiny physical particles. But physical
particles move around according to completely deterministic laws of motion, just like little
billiard balls. Therefore, the behavior of human beings is completely pre-determined, and so
it seems that human beings do not have free will.
First, we prepare the argument for diagramming as follows:
(1) “Everything in the world is purely physical,” {and} (2) “all physical stuff is made up
entirely of tiny physical particles.” (Therefore,) (3) “everything in the world consists
entirely of tiny physical particles,” (and so) (4) “human beings consist entirely of tiny
physical particles.” {But} (5) “physical particles move around according to completely
deterministic laws of motion, just like little billiard balls.” (Therefore,) (6) “the behavior of
human beings is completely pre-determined,” (and so it seems that) (7) “human beings do
not have free will.”
6
It wouldn’t really matter if you didn’t include ‘it seems that’ in the last conclusion indicator
with ‘and so’. This is the best way to do it, but it would be fine if you included ‘it seems
that’ in statement (6) or simply left it out as background material.
Now the argument is set up for us to diagram it. The diagram is as follows:
(1)———(2)
¯
(3)
¯
(4)———(5)
¯
(6)
¯
(7)
How can we figure this out? Well, the ‘and’ between (1) and (2) tells us that (1) and (2) are
on the same level of the diagram, and the ‘Therefore’ between (2) and (3) tells us that (3) is
the conclusion of (1) and (2). Thus, combining these two pieces of information, we learn
that (1), (2), and (3) will be diagrammed like this:
(1)
(2)
(3)
But we still need to determine whether this argument is linked or convergent. To determine
this, we need to read the premises and decide whether they are providing two different
reasons to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s convergent) or whether they are
working together to provide a single reason to believe the conclusion (in which case it’s
linked). The answer is that it’s linked. The argument is essentially of the form “All A’s are
B’s; all B’s are C’s; therefore, all A’s are C’s.” Clearly, the premises are working together
here to provide a single reason to believe the conclusion, and so the argument is linked.
Thus, (1)-(3) get diagrammed like this:
(1)———(2)
¯
(3)
Next, the ‘and so’ between (3) and (4) tells us that (4) is a conclusion of (3) and, hence, that
(3) is pointing down at (4) in the diagram. Reading on, we see a ‘But’ between (4) and (5);
this tells us that these two statements are on the same level of the diagram. Moreover, the
‘Therefore’ between (5) and (6) tells us that (6) is the conclusion of (4) and (5). Thus,
combining these two pieces of information, we learn that the diagram will look like this:
7
(1)———(2)
¯
(3)
¯
(4)
(5)
(6)
But we still need to determine whether the argument in (4)-(6) is linked or convergent. But,
again, this is easy. The argument is similar in logical form to the argument in (1)-(3), and
so, again, the premises are working together to support the conclusion, and so the diagram is
linked. Thus, (1)-(6) get diagrammed like this:
(1)———(2)
¯
(3)
¯
(4)———(5)
¯
(6)
Finally, the ‘and so it seems that’ between (6) and (7) tells us that (7) is a conclusion from
(6) and, hence, that (6) should point at (7) in the diagram. Thus, the overall diagram is as
follows:
(1)———(2)
¯
(3)
¯
(4)———(5)
¯
(6)
¯
(7)
We now need to locate at least one basic premise that is questionable or unacceptable and
explain why it is questionable or unacceptable. The basic premises in this argument are (1),
(2), and (5). Statements (3), (4), and (6) also function as premises, but they are not basic
premise, because they are supported by other statements.
Statements (1), (2), and (5) are all questionable. The easiest one to pick here is statement
(1). Indeed, it is very easy to explain why this is questionable. One might do this as
follows:
“Premise (1) is clearly controversial and questionable, because many people believe that
8
human beings are not purely physical. Anyone who believes that humans beings have
souls will reject premise (1), because souls are not physical things. They are immaterial.
Thus, since there are obviously very many people who believe in souls, it is
controversial to claim that humans are purely physical, and so, of course, it is also
controversial to claim that everything is purely physical.”
Once again, there are other acceptable ways to explain why premise (1) is questionable and
controversial. This is just one acceptable way to do this.
Premises (2) and (5) are also questionable. But to know this, you would have to know some
physics, and students in this course are not expected to know any physics. Nonetheless, if
you wanted to, you could pick one of these two premises and explain why it is controversial
or questionable. One might do this for premise (2) in something like the following way:
“Premise (2) is questionable. It is a controversial claim in contemporary physics to
claim that all physical stuff is made up entirely of particles. Some people think that
there are such things as waves and fields that cannot be reduced to particles.”
And in connection with premise (5), you could say something like this:
“The thesis that physical particles behave deterministically is controversial. The truth is
that physicists just don’t know whether all sub-atomic events are causally determined by
prior events and causal laws. Thus, premise (5) is questionable.”
Finally, make sure, wh…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment