Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A valid deductive argument for the strongest form, if its... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The a priori argument for the strongest form of psychological egoism does not support the weak form that altruism is never pure.

    A valid deductive argument for the strongest form, if its premises are false or equivocal, provides zero inferential support for weaker claims that share those same problematic premises.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    False premises(describes a problem with the argument's foundation)
    Starting statements in an argument that are not true, which weakens or breaks the argument even if the logic itself is correct.
    Valid deductive argument(the foundation of the statement)
    A chain of reasoning where, if the starting statements (premises) are true, the conclusion must absolutely be true—there's no way around it.
    equivocal(Contrasted with analogical predication; Aquinas denies that 'good' applied to God and creatures is purely equivocal.)
    Using a term in wholly unrelated senses across different applications.
    inferential support(as used in logic and argumentation)
    The logical reasoning or evidence that backs up a conclusion; if the support is removed, the conclusion is left without proof.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    premises(as used in logic and philosophical arguments)
    Starting statements or assumptions that are used to support a conclusion—like the opening claims in an argument that lead to a final point.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    The a priori argument for the strongest form of psychological egoism does not su...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective