Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some
Short Paper
Write a paper where you reconstruct one (1) of the arguments below. Your paper should:
Begin with a brief summary, in your own words, of the argument.
Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is in your own words and valid
For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.
Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.
Deny one (1) premise: explicitly state which premise you deny and explain why you think it is false. Do not object to the conclusion of the argument.
Turn your own reasoning into a standard form argument. Make sure your reconstruction is valid, and that its conclusion is an explicit denial of the premise in question.
For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.
Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.
Add a concluding paragraph where you address the following question: how would the proponent of the original argument respond to your counter-argument? Which premise would they deny, and how would they do so?
(1) ATTAS ON BELIEVING FALSEHOODS
“Now it is generally the case that individuals prefer their beliefs to be true. It might seem, then, that one's welfare, in the sense of preference satisfaction, is reduced when one's belief is false. But I think that preference satisfaction is irrelevant to the agent's welfare when the agent doesn't know if his want has been satisfied or not. I want my great grand children to live in a healthier environment: will the actual facts to which I am necessarily ignorant make the slightest difference to my happiness today? Would not my belief that my descendants environment be healthier, unfounded though it may be, enhance my welfare? It is not merely the fact of my preference having been satisfied or frustrated that has an effect on my welfare. Rather, it is also the epistemic aspect of the matter: in my knowing that this is the case, and, in the absence of knowledge, in my believing that my preference has been satisfied. So, though a person may prefer to hold true beliefs, his holding false beliefs will not affect his welfare since he necessarily believes his false beliefs to be true.” (Attas, p. 53)
(2) SNYDER ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF VICTIMS
“…there is reason to think that the demeaned party may in certain circumstances have an obligation not to accept a demeaning choice or at least to offer resistance to the silencing effect of demeaning choices. This obligation stems from a political responsibility to help reform the structural injustices that shape the options for the demeaned party and that have made her and others vulnerable to being placed in a demeaning position in the first place… Victims of injustice may be in a unique position to convey the experiences of unjust treatment, reflect on the impacts of proposals for reforms, and act as agents of change given the authenticity of their voices and experiences in light of their unjust treatment. (Snyder, p. 356)
