#20 - Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people are

[AspenHerman]

Hi!

When I read this question stem, I read it as looking for THE technique that the philosopher is using in their argument, so the most abstract view of the words on the screen. I chose A, but I can see that it would even be wrong with how I read the question, as the author does not show that unnatural actions are immoral (the philosopher actually shows that the line of reasoning is impossible).

Since it says "a technique", answer B makes a lot more sense. However, I'm curious, if it asked for the overarching technique that the philosopher used, would that technique still be defining a key term, or more like showing how the necessary conditions do not exist, so the sufficient condition does not carry?

Thanks!
Aspen

[AspenHerman]

To find this question later: Lesson 7 HW Method of Reasoning (41)

[Adam Tyson]

I don't think so, AspenHerman. As I see it, the more important aspect of this argument is how the author takes that definition and uses it to show that the opposing argument relies on an oversimplification. Or the answer might say something like "showing that the opposing argument is based on criteria that are not relevant to the question at hand."

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
I am still having difficulty understanding why D is wrong. I think I might interpret "self-contradiction" in a slightly different way and could not figure out why that is incorrect.
The philosopher first said that it is impossible to act unnaturally since it violates the laws of nature. Then he claims that it is possible to act since "not usually done does not indicate one can not do it". In other words, he said people cannot do it then he said people could do it; is it evidence of self-contradiction? If not, what is the best way to understand this?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi CJ,

The self-contradiction would have to be in the claim the philosopher is arguing against: "People are morally obligated to act a certain way because it would be unnatural not to." A self-contradiction is that two things cannot both be true. People are morally obligated to do X because they are morally obligated NOT to do X would be a contradiction. There's no argument here that people are morally obligated not to act in a certain way. It's that it would be an unnatural way to act. That's different than moral obligations.

Hope that helps!