PHL 375U: Food Ethics Assignment Guide
Four assignments are due during the next 10 weeks. In short, you will need to find the argument from the given passage (on D2L), put that argument into ‘Strict Form’, and offer a Critique of that argument. The absolute maximum for this assignment is one full letter-sized page of typical word processing software. Assignments are due on Sunday evening at 11:59 p.m., and are to be sent to the course email (phl3751904@gmail.com) with the subject line: Last name, Week #X. For example: Sharpsteen, Week #2. You need to decide which four of the next ten weeks you will be turning in assignments. You cannot turn in more than one assignment per week. Feel free to do them in the first four weeks, last four weeks, or somewhere in between. Just make sure you turn in four to the course email by the end of the tenth week.
What these assignments will do is force you to engage with a very specific piece of the reading material. Most of the given assigned passages will focus on an important section, or what I think is the crux of the piece – where the action lies. Your grade will be based on i) finding the argument from the assigned passage; ii) your Strict Form; iii) your Critique of the argument; iv) your organization, format, and style; v) paying attention to the maximum length; vi) getting it submitted on time in the requested format. All assignments are eligible for discussion with me if you are concerned about the score, or if you’d like clarification about my comments. The first two will be given back with line-by-line comments on grammar, organization, and analysis so you can get a sense of what I’m looking for. I will provide examples on D2L for you to follow. I will post a general review of each assigned passage after the due date for you to review and compare to your submission.
The Task The task of these assignments is to locate an argument, give an orderly reconstruction of that argument, and evaluate it.
1. Identify an argument As you are reading, you should stop every so often and ask yourself “What are they saying here?” They might be giving a definition or characterizing a concept (just in order to set up a part of the discussion), they may be discussing the work of other authors or ways of thinking about the topic (again, mainly to set things up and to provide context), or they might be stating a definite claim about something regarding the topic. Most authors will develop positions of their own in the readings we are giving, and they have to support those positions. They develop those positions by making claims and supporting claims. The claims are the conclusions of arguments, and the support is made up of premises. I will be locating specifically important parts of some of the pieces assigned and asking you to identify what the author is stating in that passage and how they are supporting that claim.
2. Put the argument in Strict Form This is the hardest part. When you’ve located the positive claim and located its support, now you need to figure out how all the moving pieces work. Start with the conclusion and work through, step by step, how they justify that conclusion. This will most likely take multiple attempts at each premise, multiple re-orderings, and reconstructing most of the language. You will most likely not find the full argument laid out explicitly in the assigned passage. You will have to insert implied premises, reconstruct difficult or complex sentences, and perhaps give a conclusion that the author doesn’t.
One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.
Explicitly state. But is that what the author is saying? If so, then include it in the Strict Form. Number the premises as well as the conclusion. More details on Strict Form are below.
3. Organize and evaluate What do you think about what just happened there in the reading? Your critique should have three parts: i) an introductory few sentences that briefly present the main ideas of the argument in your own words (10-15%); ii) a larger body paragraph (or paragraphs) that critically examine(s) the truth of one or more of the premises, the validity of the argument as a whole, the problematic entailments of the argument for the larger paper or topic, or potential criticisms and the author’s response to those criticisms (75-85%); and iii) a brief concluding paragraph summarizing your results (5-10%). Most of the assignment, therefore, should be evaluation and analysis. Please don’t present or explain the argument in this section. The Strict Form is there to present the ideas in the most clear and explicit terms. You have a brief introduction to present the overall thrust of the piece. The rest should be some deep analysis of the argument presented.
Some of the questions you should be asking and answering are as follows: Is it a good argument? Are all of the premises true? If the author presents or evaluates the argument you are yourself evaluating, did they present and evaluate it correctly? Did they miss anything? Are there any entailments of the authors arguments that are problematic? The goal in this section is to provide your intellectual response: Is it correct? Is it justified? Is it (intellectually) interesting? Why or why not? That last one is the most important. If you agree with the author and find their reasoning to be cogent, then what are some potential criticisms that the author might face? How should the author respond to those criticisms?
I am looking for quite substantial discussions of the arguments in question, focused mainly on evaluation and analysis of those arguments. You don’t need to present the argument – your analysis will give me an idea of how much you understand how the argument works and what it is really saying. Think of these as mini-papers. They are only to be one page in length, but they should be a dense one page.
Strict Form The steps required to put an argument into Strict Form are as follows:
Identify the conclusion Identify and number the premises Order appropriately Make implicit premises (enthymemes) explicit Remove all irrelevant material
Your first step is identifying the overall idea of what a piece of text (in this case a paragraph or sentence) is trying to support. This will be the conclusion of an argument. Remember that the structure of an argument is one statement supported by other statements in connection. The ideal in philosophical writing is the clear, concise, support of a statement. You will find this ideal to be met in most of the readings assigned. An important step in identifying the conclusion is identifying what kind of statement it is. This will make a difference in how you construct and connect the premises to each other and how the premises connect to the conclusion. (Please talk to me if you need help with argument structure.)
The next step is numbering the premises. Remember that premises are statements. Again, identifying what kind of statement each premise is will ensure that you’ve constructed the argument correctly. Numbering each premise clearly will help you decide the appropriate order for the premises (each argument will have a ‘better’ and ‘worse’ order) and make it simple to make clear reference to your argument in your criticism.
If you find that you cannot construct a well-supported argument from the given text, there may be an implicit premise (enthymeme) that the author is relying on to support their claims. It will be necessary to make those enthymemes explicit. There are background assumptions and implicit support in most language, so try to only make explicit those premises that don’t form part of background understanding of most people.
There may also be information that isn’t necessary to support a specific claim in the surrounding text. This happens more in natural language than it will in the assigned readings, but it will be important to be able to identify what is necessary for the structure of the argument, what is irrelevant, and what is the beginning of a new topic in the text.
Once you’ve done all these steps, look at the argument you have and evaluate whether or not the Strict Form of the argument matches the original purpose of the given section. Does it seem like the point of the text is identified as the conclusion? Is the surrounding text supporting the conclusion in the way that is laid out in your strict form? Could the author have given your Strict Form and made the same point with the same support?
Take a look at the Strict Form Practice on D2L. Make sure to try your hand at some of those and perhaps other arguments you find in the readings. I cannot stress enough how important developing the ability of creating Strict Form (either on paper, digitally, or mentally) is for this course and understanding textual material in general. Mastering this skill will make you a better person. Well, more intelligent at the very least.
Criticism This section is a more in-depth look at the process of developing a critique of an argument. If you feel comfortable evaluating arguments and providing reasoned criticism, feel free to skip this section. N.B. only the last step should make up the content of you evaluation. The rest are steps that can be taken in order to understand the argument and develop an analysis. What I want in the assignments is what results from this process.
I will be using the below text throughout as an example to make descriptions of the process clear.
If everyone ultimately dies and is ultimately forgotten, nothing we do seems to have much meaning. The only way, therefore, to show that there is meaning to life at all is to show that something happens after we die – that there is another kind of life after this one that goes on for eternity. Only if we can be remembered, somehow, for eternity can there be meaning at all to the temporal things that we do from day to day. If all our actions are in vain, then there can’t be any meaning to our existence. [Attempt you own Strict Form of this passage before moving on if you want practice, and compare with what is presented below.]
1. If there is no afterlife, then we will not be remembered for eternity. 2. If we will not be remembered for eternity, then everyone will ultimately die and be forgotten. 3. If everyone dies and is forgotten, then all our daily actions are in vain. 4. If all our daily actions are in vain, then our lives are meaningless.
C: If there is no afterlife, then our lives are meaningless.
To criticize, of course, is to find fault with. The main ways to criticize an argument are 1) to show that a premise is false and 2) show that an argument is invalid by coming up with a counterexample that shows that the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. Typically, one should show that one of the core premises is false (see
below for definition of ‘core premise’) for the first option. The second option works because of the definition of a valid argument.
There are seven steps to providing an appropriate criticism of a sample text. These are as follows and will be discussed in turn:
1. Present Strict Form 2. Identify Core vs. Subsidiary premises 3. Identify essential terms 4. Identify connection between essential terms and argument support 5. Define essential terms 6. Decide on strategy of critique 7. Evaluate argument
Present Strict Form Presenting the Strict form of the argument you are criticizing is essential. The main reason for this is so that you have a clear idea of what argument the text under review is actually presenting. Following the steps of finding Strict Form will allow you to see whether or not you have correctly captured the force of the argument and the steps that the author is presenting in the text.
Another reason why presenting the Strict Form is essential is that criticizing an argument may involve singling out a particular premise (or premises) and evaluating that premise or premises individually in terms of truth and falsity. This is easier to do when the premises are laid out and the language of each premise can be seen clearly. Often, an argument’s acceptability will depend on the structure and diction of one or two particular premises.
Identifying Core vs. Subsidiary Premises
Most arguments will contain two kinds of premises: 1) Core premises which provide most of the support for the conclusion and ‘do most of the work’, and 2) Subsidiary premises which provide the supplementary structure to ensure validity. Core premises are often the ones that contain essential (conceptual) terms, and thus cannot usually be evaluated appropriately until decisions are made regarding the meaning of those terms. Subsidiary premises are typically less controversial and may even be simple truths or definitions.
In our example, it should be clear that premises 1 & 2 are Subsidiary premises, and premises 3 & 4 are Core premises. The reason that we can tell that 1 & 2 are Subsidiary premises is because they seem to be simply true. If there is no afterlife, then of course no one will be remembered for eternity. How can someone be remembered after all human beings have ceased to be, if indeed it requires human beings to do the remembering? Also, it is simply true that our not being remembered for eternity implies our dying and being forgotten. By definition, if we are not remembered, then we are forgotten.
There are a few reasons that we can tell premises 3 & 4 are Core premises. The first is that this argument is trying to express the idea that our lives may be completely meaningless and our actions are all in vain. It is in premises 3 & 4 that the terms ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’ are introduced. It is also in premises 3 & 4 that the important connections are made between being forgotten and our actions being in vain, as well as the connection between our actions being in vain and our lives being meaningless. It is these two connections which are most important for
the support of the overall argument. If they are true, then the argument will most likely be sound. These are the premises we will want to focus on.
Identify essential terms
Essential terms are those philosophical, political, or normative terms which do not have an agreed upon definition. Being able to identify the essential terms of an argument will allow one to identify how those terms are playing a role in supporting the conclusion. It will also allow one to see how changes in the meanings of those terms can change the truth-value of particular premises. This, in turn, will allow one to see how debates on these topics can influence some of our most important beliefs.
The essential terms in our example are primarily ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’/’meaning’. One may argue that ‘afterlife’ and ‘eternity’ are essential concepts as well, for we need to be clear about what the author might mean by these terms, and if those terms are nonsensical then the argument fails immediately. These considerations are on point, but in this example there are two ways we can decide which to focus on: 1) ‘afterlife’ and ‘eternity’ appear in Subsidiary rather than Core premises; and 2) ‘afterlife’ and ‘eternity’ are less conceptual in nature than something being ‘in vain’ or ‘meaningless’. These latter terms have to do with the meaning of existence (if there is one) and will perhaps never have a precise definition. ‘Afterlife’ is whatever happens after our mortal existence (when our body dies). ‘Eternity’ is less clear, but we seem to be able to make inferences using this term without too many issues. The distinction between ‘afterlife’ and ‘eternity’ on the one hand, and ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’ on the other is vague, but in this example it should be relatively clear that the latter are terms that are more ‘conceptual’ in nature.
Identify connection between essential terms and argument support
What is the connection between the essential terms used in the argument and that argument’s soundness? It is often the case that the definitions of essential terms will be assumed by the author, and the soundness of the overall argument will depend on that assumed definition. It is also often the case that much philosophical, political, or normative debate depends on the disagreement of the meanings of essential terms. (Think about the abortion debate over the definition of ‘human being’ or the debate on euthanasia between ‘killing’ and ‘letting die’, or general debates in philosophy over terms like ‘analytic’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘truth’.) This is why coming to a decision about the meanings of these essential terms is one of the most important steps in criticism and critique more generally.
In our example, the connection between ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’ and the soundness of the argument is clear: if our actions are in vain because they are forgotten, and if they are meaningless because they are in vain, then we can say that the argument is sound. The most important connections to the strength of the argument is between ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’, as well as being forgotten and being in vain. Deciding whether those connections hold will depend specifically on the meanings of those essential terms.
Define essential terms
This is perhaps the most important part of the criticism process. This is where, when considering an argument, people often say ‘Well, it depends on what you mean by [term]. If you mean such-and-such, then the argument is sound, but if it means so-and-so then it doesn’t quite work.’ Deciding on the meanings of essential terms is in actuality deciding on the soundness of the argument in question. Now, deciding on the meanings of essential terms cannot be done haphazardly. This is whether most of the philosophical argument comes to the fore. There must be reasons for choosing one definition over another. For example, what are the reasons that we may want to define ‘human being’ as something that exists at the moment of conception vs. something that exists after a personality is developed vs. something that exists at the first heartbeat?
It is not altogether clear which should have more strength in philosophical argument – the conclusions or the essential terms. Should one define essential terms in order to make their conclusion sound, or should one define the essential terms first and see what follows? This will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and generally we want to maximize the correctness of the definitions of the essential terms and the match between our intuitions and the conclusions reached by our arguments. If our arguments result in truths that we cannot accept or seem wildly unreasonable (one famous philosophical argument concludes that we don’t have hands), then it is likely that our terms are not defined properly. But we also don’t want to define our terms specifically just to be able to conclude whatever we want.
This is often why criticisms (and critiques in general) point out the strengths and weaknesses of an argument (give a full evaluation), rather than coming down clearly on one side or the other. If one finds that an argument is simply unsound (because of a false premise) or clearly invalid, a criticism will point out those shortcomings and perhaps suggest ways that the argument could be altered to provide something more reasonable. This is the difference between understanding the nature of argument for the sake of understanding and doing so for the sake of being right. We want to try and always practice the former rather than the latter.
In our example, we need to come to appropriate definitions of ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’. Intuitively, ‘in vain’ is an adjective that applies to things that are done for a specific purpose but fail to achieve that purpose. Is this the sense that the author is conveying? Surely our actions each, individually, have a purpose and they may or may not achieve their goals. Surely my getting up this morning was not in vain, for one of its purposes was to be an active member of the community, which (arguably) was accomplished. So, perhaps something else was meant by ‘in vain’. It is likely the case that the author meant ‘in vain’ in a more general sense, having to do with the overall meaning of life, or the overall goal of existence. It seems as though the author had in mind the idea of a meaningful life as that in which you make the world a better place than you found it, and you leave something behind as a mark of your existence. If the world would have been relatively the same had you lived or not (in a more general sense – of course it wouldn’t be exactly the same), then it seems as though there was no meaning to your life whatsoever. That seems more like what the author meant, if the argument is to make the most sense.
Also, this gives us a decent definition of ‘meaningless’/’meaning’. The author seems to have wanted to say that the meaning of life is dependent on the positive change you make to the world. For, if you make no change whatsoever, then you could have easily just not existed. If it wouldn’t have made a difference that you are alive, then your life is meaningless. This seems to allow the argument to at least get off the ground. Given these two definitions, we can see how the argument can be considered to be sound. If, in the end, no matter what we do, the world will be the same (in fact, it will be destroyed), then we might as well have not existed. It will all end eventually, and we will have nothing to show for any of our actions. Only if those actions can leave behind a meaningful change for eternity can our lives have meaning.
But is that a proper use of the terms ‘in vain’ and ‘meaningless’? We have just been considering what the author meant by the use of those terms (in order that the argument seems as strong as possible), but we need to evaluate whether or not those terms are being used as they should, or if we need to supply more appropriate definitions.
Decide on strategy of critique
So far, we have our argument in strict form, we know what premises are doing the most work, we have located our essential terms, we know how they connect together with other parts of the argument to give it support, and we know what they must mean in order to make the argument sound. At this point, we should know exactly what we need to do in order to make the argument fail. Can we argue that the meanings of the essential terms are wrong? This will help us prove a core premise to be false. Can we keep the entire premise set true, maintaining the meanings of the essential terms as the author intended while showing the conclusion to be false? This will help us prove that the argument is invalid. If we were to be able to do either of these, what would provide a more sound argument? Or is the argument in all ways simply unsound?
In our example, it seems that we can show that there are different ways of understanding what it means to have a meaningful life. This can be done by showing how we actually use those essential terms. Do we normally consider a meaningful life as that which is described by the author of the argument? Are there other ways to have a meaningful existence? It seems to depend on what purpose one considers life to have. For instance, one may consider the purpose of a human being to be making as little difference to the world as possible. Therefore, keeping this possibility in mind, we ought to be able to show that premise (4) is false. (And because we have our argument in strict form, we can say precisely why it is false, and how its falsity will affect the overall argument.
Evaluate Argument
See the next page for an example of a submitted assignment. Note that the below is the only part of this process that should be submitted. There are a few things to note about the evaluation below.
– All formatting rules and suggestions are followed.
– Specific premises are being referred to throughout the evaluation. This is one reason why presenting Strict Form is so useful for evaluating arguments.
– Each critical paragraph says which premise they are ultimately challenging. This is necessary, for the main way to criticize arguments is to show that one of the premises is false.
– The author is not challenging the conclusion. This is the biggest fallacy made by beginning students in Philosophy. Remember: what matters is not what is claimed, but why we should believe it. Reasons rule.
– The proper amount of the submission is evaluation and analysis. Only very little space is used to summarize or present the ideas in the Strict Form.
– Any (philosophical or conceptual) claim that is made is supported by reasons. Anything you positively state in these assignments should be supported.
– It is organized, clear, and concise, but also provides substantive reasoning on a number of issues.
Noah Sharpsteen Week #1 Submission 20190328
1. If there is no afterlife, then we will not be remembered for eternity. 2. If we will not be remembered for eternity, then everyone will ultimately die and be forgotten. 3. If everyone dies and is forgotten, then all our daily actions are in vain. 4. If all our daily actions are in vain, then our lives are meaningless.
C: If there is no afterlife, then our lives are meaningless.
The author is presenting an argument that ultimately claims that there must be an afterlife for our lives to have any meaning whatsoever. If there is no afterlife, then we will be forgotten. If we are forgotten, then all our actions are in vain. There is hardly a more appropriate definition of a meaningless existence than one in which all our actions are in vain. Thus, argues the author, without an afterlife our lives are meaningless.
This argument seems to fully depend on what the author takes to be a meaningful existence. Given that, if we take premises (3) and (4) to be true, by “in vain” the author means something like “could have otherwise not existed”, we can infer that the author takes a meaningful existence to be one that makes a large or important difference to the world, the future, or the people in it. There are a few problems with this assumption. Is this what we should understand to be a meaningful existence? This isn’t an unpopular idea of a meaningful life, but there are plenty others with sufficient support. For example, one might take a meaningful existence to be one in which you make as little difference as possible. The purpose of life, according to this view, is to live simply, enjoy simple pleasures, not get wrapped up in one’s ego or ultimate purpose, and not have any negative effects on the future lives of other or the world. This is common, in one form or another, in particular Eastern religions and philosophies. This is also common to those who think that the human species has overall negative effects on other creatures as well as the planet at large. For the sake of furthering the existence of this world, we should make as little difference as possible. It was doing just fine before we got here. There are two ways this line of thought would alter the argument above. We could argue that premise (3) is false because being forgotten doesn’t lead to our actions being in vain (because by being forgotten we are doing what we should do). We could also argue that premise (4) is false insofar as although our actions are “in vain”, that is the very thing that gives meaning to our lives.
We can also argue against the notion that a meaningful life has to make a large or important difference. One way to do this is to argue that all of our lives are importantly connected. Given what we are taking the author to mean by “in vain” and “meaningless”, we could argue that those who do make large or important contributions to the world, the future, or people in it, could not do so without all the little interactions among all others. Although we might not be able to trace the consequences of our tech-support job, we could reasonably say that without someone’s home computer working that day, perhaps they wouldn’t have been able to connect with their aunt who was changed dramatically by their conversation, and because of that made a lasting difference to an author who ended up writing a piece that changed the life of someone who does make a large or important contribution. We can reasonably assume that our actions ramify throughout the world in some extent. We should therefore not think of individuals’ large and important projects to be merely their own – we all play a part in some way. (But that means we also play a part in all the large and important catastrophes). This would provide us strong reason to think that premise (3) is false.
Ultimately, there are strong reasons to suppose that a number of the premises are false. This is because the definitions of “in vain” and “meaningless” are too narrow to be accurate. Therefore, the argument is unsound.
