Why We Have Arguments? (And How To Solve Them)

I would like to submit to you a simple structure to every argument, as talked about by Aristotle in Rhetoric. There are two parts to an argument: the premise, and the conclusion. (1)

By premise, I mean a preliminary point (an assumption if you will) that is taken as granted, or taken as true (example to follow).

By conclusion, I mean the logical derivation or logical follow-up of one or more premises (example to follow).

I shall use the Aristotlean syllogism (a certain kind of argument in which there are two premises and a conclusion drawn from them) to demonstrate the reason behind the many, ideological or otherwise, arguments that people tend to have. (2)

The famous example for syllogism used by Aristotle is:

1.       All men are mortal. (PREMISE 1)

2.      Socrates is a man. (PREMISE 2)

3.       Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (CONCLUSION)

In this, the first two are premises, taken as granted.
The third statement is the conclusion, derived from the first two.

This basically means that people use premises to draw conclusions, and this forms an argument. If we accept this simple structure of Premise-Conclusion as the structure for all arguments, then it follows that the reasons for arguments can be:

1.       The premises are the same, but the conclusion differs.

2.       The premises themselves differ.

The first kind can easily be resolved, I feel, through application of corrected logic. I shall give you an example to illustrate my point. Take, for example, this syllogism:

1.       All promises must be kept. (PREMISE 1)

2.       I promised my mother that I would do the dishes. (PREMISE 2)

3.       But I am not going to do the dishes because I don’t want to. (CONCLUSION)

This is obviously a logically incorrect argument (as much as it pains me to admit it), because the conclusion does not logically derive from the premises, and can be easily corrected.

Therefore, a person who believes the same premises as you can be persuaded to change their conclusion by the correct application of logic.

1.       All promises must be kept. (PREMISE 1)

2.       I promised my mother that I would do the dishes. (PREMISE 2)

3.       Therefore I will do the dishes even if I do not want to. (CONCLUSION)

This is, sadly, the logically correct argument.

This is how arguments can be solved where the premises for both the opposing arguments are the same.

However, the trickier one to solve is the second: when the premises themselves differ. Here, the difference is in the case of the Premise, which itself is an assumption taken as granted, and therefore, something which cannot be questioned.

In the case for Abortion, we shall see how the difference in premises works:

The pro-life argument in syllogism form-

1.       Killing people is murder.

2.       An embryo is a person.

3.       Therefore, abortion is murder.

The pro-choice argument in syllogism form-

1.       Killing people is murder.

2.       An embryo is NOT a person.

3.       Therefore, abortion is NOT murder.

This sort of difference in premises themselves are, I believe, the root cause of deep ideological conflicts, which cannot be resolved through simple debating, because both the arguments are logically sound (without testing the premises).

When you test the premises is when you start thinking about reaching some sort of a solution or agreement between both the pacts, but one way or another, the solution would result in a shaking up of the person’s most foundational ideological beliefs, which is seen as an attack by people often.

Take, for example, the capitalism/communism argument:

The capitalism argument in syllogism form-

1.       Human rights are ethical.

2.       Right to own property is a human right.

3.       Therefore, right to own property is ethical.

The communism argument in syllogism form-

1.       Human rights are ethical.

2.       Right to own property is a VIOLATION of human rights.

3.       Therefore, right to own property is unethical.

In this case, as long as the premises themselves are not questioned, we can come to no solution regarding the synthesis of the two arguments.

In the abortion debate, for example, if everyone believed that the embryo is NOT a person, there would be no argument as such, and so the difference of opinion would disappear.

Therefore, until faulty premises are looked at as arguments themselves (i.e. debating on whether right to own property is a human right or not, instead of taking it as a given), an agreement between differing parties cannot be reached.

Dialogue must be allowed between opposing parties with a keen eye set on dissecting premises of each party, without taking anything as given, or as the truth (for example, taking the Law as the truth, or God as the truth), because that would result in the concretising of premises, which, in turn, would block dialogue. This, I think, is one solution to solving arguments through synthesis and dialogue.

Terms used:

1. Premise- the point taken for granted in an argument.
2. Conclusion- the point which is derived from the premise.
3. Syllogism- an argument with two premises and a conclusion.
4. Logic- the study of arguments.

References:

1.       http://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm

2.       https://mba.hitbullseye.com/Reasoning/Syllogisms-Questions-Examples.php

3.       Rhetoric- Aristotle