The Argument

In everyday language, what we usually describe as an “argument” is some number of people yelling at each other over a disagreement that they had. In contrast, a philosophical argument is defined as a conclusion that logically follows from existing conditions, and is put forth as a means of prompting a debate or asserting a position. The form of the philosophical argument is somewhat like an equation. The existing conditions, or premises, are stated in an order that is clear and logical. Then, after adding up the premises, a conclusion is drawn. An example of an argument would be something like this:

Premise 1: There are citizens living in poverty in the US.

Premise 2: To live in poverty is to suffer.

Premise 3: It is the responsibility of the US government to prevent its citizens from suffering.

Conclusion: It is the responsibility of the US government to prevent its citizens from living in poverty.

Notice that the conclusion is comprised of the premises. The conclusion must draw entirely on information from the premises, and use no outside information. In other words, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. 

The ability to criticize an argument is just as essential to the philosophical debate as the ability to form one, and can be done by addressing the argument’s “validity” and “soundness.” Challenging the validity of an argument means to question whether the conclusion really does necessarily follow from the premises. This is is why it is so important to make sure your conclusion is comprised of your premises. That way if it is accepted that the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, and the validity of the argument cannot be challenged. To challenge the soundness of an argument means to question whether each premise is actually true. If a premise is not actually true, then the conclusion does not necessarily follow. In the above example, a Libertarian might question the soundness of premise 3, claiming that it is not the responsibility of the government to fix all of its citizens’ suffering. In that case, he would claim that the argument is not sound, and would reject the conclusion. It is much more difficult to challenge the validity of an argument, because good arguments are constructed in a way that they are valid by structure. Here is an example to illustrate that point:

P1: Apples are Bananas

P2: Bananas are Grapes

C: Apples are Grapes

The above example shows that a ridiculous argument can be valid while still being ridiculous. This argument is valid but not sound.

Arguments can also be sound, but not valid:

P1: Apples are Fruits

P2: Fruits are Healthy

C: People should eat Apples

In this argument, each of the premises is true, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. A way to fix the validity of this argument would be to add “P3: Humans should do healthy things.” With that third premise, the argument is sound and valid.

The philosophical argument follows a specific form, and the ability to form and criticize an argument is the essence of a philosophical debate.