duszek wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:06 am
"Murder is always wrong."
Is it a truism ?
Is it a partial definition of the term murder ?
You can't set out any logical question without the use of language. You have to take for granted the definition of whatever words are used (though one or the other participant in an exchange may use a word inaccurately or inappropriately, in which case the argument bogs down in semantic disagreement.)
The word "murder" is a legal term: both parties can be assumed to know that laws are made according to a code of correct and incorrect behaviour.
Thus, if both accept the term "murder" for a particular known class of homicides, then they can take wrongness as part of the definition.
That leaves open for discussion what kinds of homicide should be included in the class "murder", and whether the killing - and if so, what kinds of killing - of other species might also be included in the class "murder", and whether there can be mitigating or aggravating circumstances that would justify dividing the class "murder" into degrees of wrongness, but none of that would remove the 'given' of wrongness from the meaning of the term.
"Stealing" can be justified under some circumstances.
So can murder. In fact, any crime can be justified in terms of circumstance and motivation. Rightness, wrongness, modification or justification, motivations and desired outcomes are not the point of a logical argument.
"Murder is always wrong, by definition." is a statement
, and factual within the accepted meaning of the terms.
Now, if you wanted to make an argument
for removing a type of homicide from the class "murder", you would have to set it up with premises and a conclusion:
P1.For some people, life is unbearably painful.
P2.Some people who prefer a quick, painless death to a slow agonizing one, are physically incapable of suicide.
P3.To help such people is an act of compassion, not a crime.
C:Therefore, euthanasia is not murder.
You could do the same for theft:
In economic disparity,
P1.some people have more food than they need
P2. while some have not enough to survive
P3. that situation is unjust
P4. and there is no legal recourse for the wronged party
C: Therefore the crime of theft may be justified in cases of extreme need
"The reason everyone wants the new "Slap Me Silly Elmo" doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season!
Explanation: Everyone wanting the toy is the same thing as it being "hot," so the reason given is no reason at all—it is simply rewording the claim and trying to pass it off as support for the claim."
Let´s look at example 2.
It could be that some people buy what other people desire. So the effect of aping is reinforced.
Yes, and that's what makes it "hot".
They said the same thing twice; you've just said the same thing a third time:
"everybody wants it because
everybody wants it because
everybody wants it"
is still not a logical argument.
In that sense the statement would make sense and would not be fallacious.
A statement can be true and yet not qualify as a logical argument. Fallacy is not falsehood, but failure to make your case.