For those who haven't shared a class with me, one of my major concerns in conversations of a certain higher degree is the validity of claims presented as well as logical reasoning. The mind is a smart 'machine', so smart that it can trick itself into believing something that is not true. David Patrick Moynihan, four-term U.S. Senator from New York is quoted in saying that: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
A logical fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument, which leaves the argument invalid. There are several of these, yet two of the most popular are circular reasoning and false premises. Reading through the text beginning on page 20 and ending on page 23, we see Socrates toying with his mental adversary, Euthyphro.
One of my primary concerns with this conversation is that by the ...view middle of the document...
Euthyphro’s false premise comes when he instantly asserts his tract of god’s existences, and that holy is synonymous with good. Socrates twice brings up morally questionable acts that some of the gods in Euthyphro’s pantheon would have appreciated individuals committing, yet Euthyphro would be wrong to do so which at the very least weakens the appeal of holiness.
In addition to Socrates questions, which were good within the confines of his line of reasoning, I'd like to add the additional questions to begin my own line of reasoning. My internal goal that I would only externalize post hoc (after the fact) would be to increase the circle and add more to things we could both (hopefully) later count as fallacious. Socrates did “good” in the time he had, but If the following questions were asked, even more of a 'victory' may have been won that day in my opinion.
1. Assuming the existence of your gods, how do you support a claim that you could know what they think is 'good' and 'loved' by them?
2. You state that some things are holy and others unholy. So what? Why is what is holy necessarily good?
3. You have stated the difference between doing holy acts and just, human acts. What good has come of doing what is holy? (This last one is in close correlation with the stated question on page 23 where he asks how the gods benefit from our offerings)
Two more of my most disliked logical fallacies are the Texas Sharpshooter, which deals with selection biases in causal and correlative relationships:
…and the Strawman, which builds a phony argument where you should be discounting your opponent’s argument and then easily dismantles it:
What other questions would you have asked if you were there?
Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Philosophy, a text with readings (12th ed., pg 20-23). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co..