Come Let Us Reason Together: Effective Argumentation

I've been thinking a great deal about the use of argument, or the lack thereof, in our current political debates. It appears, in my opinion, that there is a certain level of logic and reason that is absent from our dialogues and discussions. It is for that purpose that I dug up an outline that I used to give to my students at the beginning of each semester.

It contains, I believe, useful information that can assist individuals in the proper construction of a thesis or argument. I further believe that by the application of the principles in this outline, one should be better able to articulate their perspectives and positions. I know that the term "philosophy paper" is used, but this outline could work just as well with articles, essays, oral & written debates etc.

A philosophy paper is a defense of a thesis , in which the thesis is explained , analyzed and arguments are given in support of the thesis, possible objections to the thesis are stated and examined, and responses are given to the objections. A philosophy paper is therefore composed of five essential parts:

1. The statement of the thesis 2. The analysis and explanation of the thesis

3. The arguments in support of the thesis

4. The examination of objections to the thesis

5. The response to the objections



1. The Thesis

A philosophy paper is a defense of a thesis, so the first step is to get clear what a thesis is. A thesis is a statement that makes some clear, definite assertion about the subject under discussion. For example, if the topic of a paper, the subject under discussion, is the morality of abortion , here are some of the many theses you might choose to defend:

~Abortion is morally wrong under all circumstances

~A woman has an absolute right to decide whether to have an abortion

~Abortion is morally right only to save the life of the mother

Each of these is a clear, definite statement that takes a position on the morality of abortion, a position that the rest of the paper will attempt to defend. Let's cut our philosophical teeth on another example. Suppose the subject under discussion is the existence of a Supreme Being . Among the theses you might choose to defend are the following:

~There is no God but Jehovah

~It is logically impossible for there to be a Supreme Being

~Human beings are incapable of determining whether there is a Supreme Being

Now we will look at some examples of statements that look like theses, but aren't:

~The scientific status of astrology

~Abortion, pro and con

~Why I believe in God

These aren't theses because they don't assert anything. All three of these may be considered topics , but not theses. Since we have already used the morality of abortion, we will continue to use it. For the remainder of the explanation of a philosophy paper outline we will use as a thesis:

~Abortion is morally wrong under all circumstances .

2. The Analysis and Explanation of the Thesis

The first step in the defense of a thesis is to explain what you mean by it. Since we are using as an example the thesis "Abortion is morally wrong under all circumstances whatsoever," we must state exactly what we mean by the term "abortion," by the phrase "morally wrong," and by the qualifying clause "in all circumstances whatsoever." This should not be considered a trivial exercise because in philosophy, a lot can get loaded into an innocent-looking definition. The very meaning of abortion has to be clearly and very precisely stated. Citing medical references and experts may be of help. To define what is morally wrong may be a somewhat slippery slope, but it can be (and has been) done.

Looking at what philosophers, theologians, sociologists etc. have said on the subject of morality and right & wrong can be useful. Under all circumstances whatsoever can be an all encompassing phrase. In explaining what is meant by this, points of law, religion, medicine, to name a few, can be touched on. For example, are we claiming that even in the cases of incest and rape abortion would still be wrong? Let's remember that at this stage in your paper you are not arguing, just explaining your thesis. Before moving on to the main body of the paper review what you have already written and stated. Check for clarity and detail. Read it as if you were someone else and ask: Has the writer made her or his position clear? Do I understand what has been stated and asserted?

3. The Arguments in Support of the Thesis

This should be considered the heart of the paper--the arguments for the thesis. You have got to come up with arguments that designed to persuade the reader that your thesis is true. There are many different sorts of reasons you can give in support of a thesis. Just remember: When you are putting forward an argument in support of your thesis, ask yourself, "If I didn't already believe my thesis, would this reason convince me that the thesis is true? Would it at least make me more inclined to believe that it is true? Would it tend to convince a reasonable reader who is open-minded enough so that he or she is willing to listen to reasons? If the answer is "yes" deem your arguments sound, if the answer is "no" keep looking for a better argument.

Although in philosophy there is the temptation to wax eloquent and to lose oneself in an abundance of words, don't try to be too fancy. Just look for straightforward arguments that tend to support your thesis. If we are trying to show that abortion is morally wrong, we might want to begin our argument by asserting that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and taking an innocent life is morally wrong. This is an example of what is perhaps the most widely used form of argument---what we call in philosophy circles instantiation . "Instantiation " means "giving an instance of." In this case we have appealed to the general rule:

~Taking an innocent life is morally wrong.

Then we have argued that abortion is an instance of this general rule--- it is the taking of an innocent life. If we laid out our argument completely it would look like this:

~Taking an innocent life is morally wrong.

~Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

~Therefore, abortion is morally wrong

This argument, in turn, is an instance of a general form of argument that looks like this:

All A are B (where A= acts of taking an innocent life, and B = morally wrong acts)

C is A (where C = abortion and A = taking an innocent life)

Therefore C is B (i.e., abortion is a morally wrong act)

Instantiation , or showing the matter under discussion is an instance of a general rule, is a technique of argument that can be used in a very wide variety of circumstances. Notice that if it is to be convincing to the reader, then the reader must already be persuaded that the taking of an innocent life is morally wrong. Otherwise, even though the reader agrees that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, he or she won't be led to the conclusion that it is morally wrong.

A second form of argument, which in a sense is the reverse of instantiation, is generalization . Suppose you are trying to persuade the reader that taking of an innocent life is morally wrong as a first step toward springing the above argument, and thereby proving that abortion is morally wrong. You might proceed like this (try to imagine the reader responding yes to your queries):

~Will you agree that shooting down someone walking down the street is morally wrong?

~Will you agree that bombing civilians who happen to live near a war zone is morally wrong?

~Will you agree that smothering a baby in its crib is morally wrong?

Your next step would be to state the commonality of those three acts is that they are examples of the taking of an innocent life and if those acts are morally wrong then abortion (according to your argument) must be morally wrong as well. When using generalization as a form of argument it is important to use more than a couple of examples to prove your point and make sure you are able to clearly state the commonality in those examples.

A third form of argument, especially useful in replying to an opponent's objections, is the counterexample . A counterexample is a particular case---an instantiation---designed to show that an opponent's generalization is wrong. Suppose, for example, that your opponent, trying to show that abortion is morally right, argues that a pregnant woman has a right to have an abortion because having an abortion is choosing to do something with your own body, and (this is the generalization) persons have an absolute right to do with their bodies whatever they choose . Your objective now is to prove, by counterexample, that this generalization is not in fact a true universal principle. An example of this might be:

~That a person does not have the absolute right to use their hands (their body) to strangle someone

Now let's say that your opponent made the generalization that: Persons have an absolute right to do with their own bodies whatever they choose, so long as they do not injure others (another person). Now your response could be to point out that abortion does involve hurting another person, namely the unborn child. This is an example of a fourth technique of argument, which is called counter-instantiation ---showing that a case is not an instance of the generalization your opponent has cited, but is in fact an instance of a different generalization.

Your opponent can now respond that an unborn child is not a person, and hence abortion doesn't fall under the generalization you have just invoked. In order for your opponent to build their case, they must use (as do you) two more kinds of argument: citing facts and drawing conceptual distinctions (an example of citing facts would be to say that an unborn child is not biologically fully developed or it can't live independently from the mother's body. An example of drawing conceptual distinctions, would be to focus on the concept person---what makes one a person).

In this central part of your paper, your job is to produce arguments in support of your thesis, using instantiation, generalization, counterexample, counter-instantiation, citing facts, drawing conceptual distinctions, and any other form of argument you can find. The success of your thesis, to a very considerable extent, will depend on how well you can think up arguments in support of it. What makes an argument a good one is its ability to persuade an intelligent, reasonable reader or listener who doesn't already agree with your thesis. If you test your arguments against that standard, you will be able to judge whether they are good.

4. The Examination of Objections to the Thesis

This is the part of your paper in which you put yourself in the shoes of your opponent and try to figure out the objections that she or he might raise to your thesis. It is extremely important that you think up the STRONGEST objections you can find to your thesis (no creampuff objections allowed). This may be difficult because you just spent considerable time making some pretty strong arguments FOR your thesis. In this portion of your paper you have to play the role of attorney (a good attorney spends more time focusing on the weaknesses of her or his case than the strengths of their case).

5. The Response to the Objections

And finally after offering up these strong objections to your thesis, answer them. Once again using the techniques of argument discussed in section 3. If you noticed, most of your paper----Sections 3, 4, and 5----consists of arguments; and that is what philosophy and effective argumentation is all about.