I think you're on the right track. I disagree with some of your analyses, but you're on the right track. Remember that "a priori" relates to a premise or conclusion based not on observation or testimony. For example, to contend that women have a right to choose abortion is an a priori statement. No testimony is cited, no evidence of observation is noted, and no authority is cited. It is logical and defensible, so acceptable. The conclusion that abortion should be available follows the a priori premise. Think carefully. b), I think, is unacceptable in its language. It is too broad a statement because it excludes the possibility of testimony being valid. It makes an a priori assumption that testimony is not to be trusted, which is unacceptable.
c) is unacceptable again in use of language in that it is ambiguous and an inconsistent premise. There are instances in which only American opinions have any value, as in some issues involving public affairs, i.e. should we approve a tax to fund libraries. But it is inconsistent reasoning when the opinions affect people other than Americans, i.e. should we impose a trade embargo on Iran because we disapprove of their policies? Do the Iranians' opinions deserve to be heard? We may reject their opinions as invalid or mistaken, but should we hear them and consider them? d) is unacceptable in its language. It contradicts itself. e) is acceptable by observation and a priori.
Those are my thoughts. I do think you are on the right track in that you are thinking, which is the object of the lesson. Think carefully. I do agree with your decisions as to acceptability or unacceptability, just ask you to justify your decisions a little better. You are absolutely free to disagree with me! Justify it.
I need to identify if each premise is acceptable or unacceptable, and for this the conditions of acceptability are
acceptable by observation, testimony, authoritative testimony (only use if the premise explicitly refers to an authority), and a priori
And the conditions of unacceptability are, unacceptable by observation, testimony, a priori, problems in language (e.g. ambiguity), inconsistent premises, circular (begging the question)
I need help with
a) Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Thus, abortion should be allowed. (only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)
-I think this is acceptable by observation
b)Only claims that can be objectively verified can be trusted. Many people have reported encounters with ghosts. So, the existence of ghosts is likely to be true. (only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)
- Acceptable by testimony/observation??
c)Only American opinions have any value
-Unacceptable by observation
d)Several extinct species exist in the rain forest
-I think unacceptable by a priori
e)It is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments. Thus, to every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the state(only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)
-Acceptable by testimony?
f)Wearing the Niqab is a barbaric woman-hating tribal custom. Therefore, women should not be permitted to wear the Niqab when taking the Canadian oath of citizenship.(only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)
-Unacceptable by problems with language/emotionally distorting language
I've includeed what I think each statement is, If someone could check it over and tell me if I'm on the right track or not?
1 answer