Louis XVI

If a ruler does not respect the rights of its people, the people should overthrow the ruler

Louis XVI did not respect the rights of the French people

Therefore the people of France were right to overthrown the monarchy of Louis XVI

This follows the model of:
if p then q
p
q

The logic of this syllogism is logical, however is it true?

If we break it down by sentences we can firstly see that in the first sentence there are many words that we can question. For example what does the word "overthrow" mean? Does it mean to just replace the person with someone else? Does it call for a reelection or replacement of the ruler? Does it mean to kill or exile that person? The term overthrow can mean many different things and can depend on how the people react to that situation. In my opinion here it would mean to take the ruler away from the power with some sort of force or fight.

We can also wonder what it means to a certain person to not respect the rights of the people, what does the ruler have to do or not do in order to have that said about him? What rights does the Louis need to respect in order for the people not to overthrow him?

A reason why they might have thought that he disrespected their right is his use of money. He used a lot of the money to pay for wars and didn't give a lot of money to the people of his country. However the money issue did not start with Louis the XVI it had started before and unfortunately Louis XVI came into power when the people were fed up with it and decided to rebel against it. Therefore the problem did not only come from Louis. Also Louis might have thought that was he was doing was what was right for the people and didn't realise that he had to differently. People's rights can be very different from person to person and therefore some people might have thought he was violating them and others didn't. 

A big word used in this premise is the word respect. This is a word that can interpreted in many different ways. When you research it in the dictionary it has various different meanings. It can be (1) To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. Or (2) To avoid violation of or interference and it can also be (3) To relate or refer to; concern. Which of the three definitions are they referring to in this premise? I think that here they could be talking about all three. The first one because they could be saying that Louis didn't show esteem for them by not following their will and so this means that he didn't have any esteem for them. It could be relating to the second definition because they believe that he did not avoid violation but rather he violated, probably their "rights". And finally it could also be the third one because the people could be thinking that the ruler did not relate or have concern for them which therefore means that he did not respect. We can see by this analysis that depending on the way that you look at the meaning of a certain word it may not mean the same thing. In this case, the word respect could be a respect in many different ways which makes it hard for us to know in what way the people thought that Louis had not respected their rights. 

Lastly in the last sentence of this syllogism we see that France has the "right"  to overthrow the monarchy. But what does it mean to have the right? Each time a ruler doesn't do as the people please does that mean that they are in possession of the right to take them away. What composes people's rights? Here again we have a word that can mean various different things depending on how a person interprets it. Rights can be defined as: (1) Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality or (2) In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct or (3) Fitting, proper, or appropriate and many others ... Here again the people could see that if Louis did something not conformable to justice they can overthrow him. Then if he does something that is not correct or isn't the truth he has to be overthrown. But after that definition couldn't we defend that if Louis does something that isn't reasonable or he doesn't tell the complete truth, he is a human after all and that happens to everyone. So while a ruler, Louis isn't allowed to be human? 

It's Snowing in Russia

Heroes are frequently found throughout history; they are the Gods in mythology and biblical stories, the leaders of social and political reforms the costumed men and women in comic books. Heroes are our parents and our uncles, our grandparents and older siblings. But what makes a hero? The answer to that questions depends on the person: their past experiences, their personality and the people they are surrounded by. People have different heroes for different reasons; some may have more than one and some none. Also, different cultures have different types of heroes as well. In Western culture, many children, especially young boys, grow up watching cartoons about superheroes, play video games with them as the subject and even use their imagination to create storylines with handheld action figures. Furthermore, comic books, the original form of superhero content, is now being replaced by the bustling movie industries creating prequels, sequels and multiple series with dynamic storylines of the classic heroes. But, as I mentioned before, not everyone has this schema of heroes being from a comic book; in fact, most people’s heroes are simply someone they look up too or people who work in a certain profession that they admire. The dictionary definition of a hero is, a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities: a war hero; however, even the dictionary should be criticized for it’s closed mindedness on gender because it states that a hero is typically a man.

Lets take a look at a syllogism about heroics.

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

First, on the validity of the syllogism, the form is correct.

P is Q

R is P

Therefore, R is Q.

However, as I mentioned before, the premises are high opinionated. Although we may be compelled to accept certain premises, it is hard to agree to logic that is based purely on opinions. Take the first premise for example, “All heroes deserve freedom”. This statement comes from the basis that all heroes are good, but and in that case, why would they need freedom? If someone needs freedom, it usually means that they are in some way being held in a way that they cannot control. There are several reasons for losing freedom though. Although a person may be your hero because of their admirable qualities, this doesn’t mean that the government also admires these qualities; they could be breaking the law to do something. Does breaking the law also justify freedom? Take for example, Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. It is an issue of ethics though. If this is true, there must be a highly justified reason why a criminal should be granted this freedom or else we would have thieves running all over the place stealing money from wealthy citizens and not being reprimanded. The second premise is even more opinionated because it states “Edward Snowden is a hero”. How can we define that he is a hero when to some he is s criminal and to others, a traitor? This premise is so subjective because there are so many opinions about Snowden that people have. Some are confused; their minds say that the legal systems should prosecute him while they appreciate his sacrifice to the people to give out his confidential knowledge about governmental spying. Some feel extremely biased against him, and others are completely sympathetic towards him. I, however, am at a loss of words because I do not know what I feel towards his “heroic” deeds. There is a part of me that wants to believe that knowing this information about the NSA (National Security Agency) spying on Americans’, as well as other countries’, phones messages and calls. It is a breech of privacy that makes me sick. Sick with confusion because the United States is a country that I had not seen corruption in, but was proven otherwise by Edward Snowden. However, despite many ethical arguments that go against the conclusion of the syllogism, I do agree with it. Without Snowden’s sacrifice, people will go on with their lives, oblivious about the fact that their calls were being tracked and their texts analyzed for suspicious information.

Argument Analysis

Any country that is not ready to host a world event by the time it begins should be ashamed.

Brazil is not ready for the World Cup

Therefore Brazil should be ashamed

The argument shown here is very interesting because like most syllogisms, it borders on issues of being valid but also logically correct. 

First off, we cannot take as a given that any country that is not ready to host a world event by the time it begins should be ashamed. Although this phrase is the foundation and base for the syllogism and argument presented, there are no valid points to prove that this is in fact true. Besides this, there are also many other factors that cause the first statement to be very subjective and open to questioning and doubt. What necessarily defines a country to be not ready to host an event? Being that the World Cup is a FIFA run event, we would consider the requirements that they propose and demand to be the necessary aspects to "host," or be ready for said event. However, the statement does not define ready to be "met all requirements." Many of these could be absent or not accomplished, but the country would still be able to host a highly successful and functional World Cup. Being Brazilian myself, I naturally have a large bias to defend my country and argue that it is in fact ready for the 2014 World Cup. This is not true though, because it is clear that many stadiums are not complete and we are less than 90 days to the World Cup. 

This leads me to believe that Brazil will not be ready for the World Cup when it comes, and not prepared to carry out as the previous hosts have. Therefore, the second statement can be considered to be valid. It is impossible to host a month of World Cup soccer games without the completion of all of the necessary soccer stadiums. Due to this I am inclined to believe that when the time comes, we will not be prepared to carry it out. This has been a highly debated topic ever since the announcement of Brazil being the host. Nobody has ever truly believed we would be ready, and that is completely dependent on how quickly the stadiums can be finished. 

A question, however, that should be made about the statement itself is whether a country truly should be ashamed or not. With analysis, we see that the World Cup itself is a multi-billion dollar investment, which completely reworks member city infrastructures drastically. Brazil is not as developed as many of the other nations, which is one of the largest controversies with its decision to be host. The money used in preparation could've been used for many other investments in the country, so there could be an argument that because of this lack of development of the country, this is not a surprise. The premise can also be questioned by the meaning of “who” should be ashamed. Should citizens of Brazil be ashamed because their government poorly planned the organization and preparation for the cup? Should other countries look down upon Brazil as a whole just because the 2014 management team was unsuccessful in their execution? There are many questions to be made surrounding who necessarily should be at fault, if at all anyone. Do the underdeveloped conditions of the country’s economy and society justify the unpreparedness for the World Cup? Seeing that language is a way of knowing, we see here that the word is very ambiguous, and can be interpreted different ways, and also tested to prove if it should be true at all. 

Overall, the sequence of the syllogism in fact leads me to believe that Brazil should technically be ashamed. As said before, my bias to Brazil affects my analysis of the validity, but it is correct logically and does follow the truths needed for me to believe it.

Drinking alcohol is an experience

People should take advantage of every experience life offers.

Drinking alcohol is an experience

Maria is a person

Therefore Maria should drink alcohol.

Syllogism:

p should q

r is q

s is p

Therefore s should r

The syllogism seems to make sense, however, there is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. For the argument to be valid, r should be p and not q. This would mean that drinking should be a person, to fix it in that format (or the format would have to be altered). However the problem does not end with the undistributed middle since for the argument to be true, more things should be considered. First, how can someone take advantage of every experience in life? By saying every, you are implying that the person should do all things possible. This can include, smoking crack, being run over by a car, cutting off a limb and more. It is hard to argue that people should do all of that because all are experiences life offers. Therefore, another problem with the whole argument is that the given is not sound, since it is impossible to take advantage of every opportunity. Since even if you tried, you cannot do everything in your lifetime. Another aspect that should be questioned is, if it were possible to do everything in life, would it be worth it? Does it make sense to cut of your arm simply because you can? Would the fact that I know I can be run over by a car if I wanted to make me want to do that? Some people might want to do that but that does not encompass everyone and “people” already implies “all people.” Even though these examples are absurd, because the argument wasn’t specific enough it encompasses experiences that range from trying a new flavor of ice cream to smoking crack.

Along with that comes another issue, this completely opinion-based with no facts (sources) backing it, so someone could accept it if it is convenient for them. For example, if Maria wanted to drink, even if the argument was not entirely logical, she might agree with it because it fits the choice she wants to make. The opposite also applies and in that case, because the syllogism has an undistributed middle as well, the statement can reinforce the already defined choice that Maria made of not drinking. The belief expresses in this argument is not properly justified nor is it true if analyzed logically as shown above. It makes evaluating and denying it easier if seen impartially but if the person has the firm belief that Maria should try to drink alcohol, then he/she might allege that he/she can accept it simply because of the convenience of it (as said before). If this argument’s truth were to be measured, it would definitely be towards the side of untruthful since its premises lack any justification to be sound and it also has the fallacy of the undistributed middle. On the other hand, another (and possibly simpler) way to see how the argument does not work is through induction. It can work through observing that several people were not able to take advantage of every experience life offers – after seeing that several people cannot do that, you can infer it isn’t possible. Deduction is also possible since it can be done in the exactly opposite way, so knowing that people cannot take advantage of every experience in life, you can assume some won’t.

It is important, though, to define should as used in argument. It can mean “to indicate obligation, duty” but also “to indicate what is probable.” There are other definitions as well but most revolve around these usages of the word. In the way it is written in the argument, it implies the first definition (obligation), however since language is a way of knowing, and since there can be an ambiguity it is important to address it because it can lead to a completely different interpretation of the argument. However, the reasons for why I believe it is used to indicate a duty is because of the sentence construction and the placement of the word within the two sentences, language aspects that I cannot be too specific about but are clearly exemplified in a dictionary. Having defined that all the previous counterarguments are closer to being valid since they were based on the word with the first definition. Should is not the only word that needs analysis in the sentence, though. The term “taking advantage” has many meanings but due to context one of its definitions can be chosen to suit the sentence best, “make good use.” This denotation of the word implies that the person is not only experiencing everything in life but also getting something nice out of it. So, one could argue that my counterclaims are invalid since cutting off your own limb is not an experience you can take advantage of, however this just validates my point; since the sentence says “take advantage of every experience life offers” the person arguing this is saying that each experience in life needs to be made into good use. Thus, even though people might have different ideas of what is good or bad and what can help or harm them, we can still reach a conclusion that with the definitions given of both the word “should” and the term to “take advantage” the argument becomes impossible to accomplish. On the other hand, someone can counter argue that by saying it is an experience that life offers it can mean opportunities that appear to you while you live, and some of the ones I listed are probably not included. To that I would first need to say that the ambiguity of the word leads to various interpretations and for that matter the argument should be more specific and, if it were that specific, it would still be impossible. For example, when applying to colleges, many people are accepted into more than one college, if they were to follow this argument would they need to attend every single college they got into? That isn’t possible. So, even though life is offering them the possibility to go to x, y and z colleges they have to choose one, which consequently means they have to opt-out of two possibilities life offered to them. Hence, language has to be analyzed closely when an argument or counterargument is made.

Language is not the only way of knowing that should be considered, though. Perception can have a play in this discussion where one might question why even consider a certain experience and the other might question the person’s reluctance to having the experience. This involves understanding how the two people approach the situation and at that point they enter the zone of exchange, where each individual’s knowledge becomes shared knowledge. Even though the argument is fallacious, in the zone of exchange both people can expose why it does/doesn’t make sense to him/her. This can lead to each person gaining more knowledge due to another person’s experience. It can also lead to clashes since two individuals might strongly disagree, but if they can get past those differences they are able to learn more about each other’s points of views.

The argument is not sound and for that reason I am not inclined to accept it. On the other hand, it is easy to see why other people might be inclined to accept the argument. Counterclaims are not too hard to find since there is the presence of a fallacy, the premises don’t really have a justification and the conclusion (due to undistributed middle) does not necessarily follows. However, I might be finding so many counterarguments since I do not believe in what it says and thus personal bias can have an influence in how I see the reasoning behind it. I cannot be completely impartial, but with greatest amount of impartiality I can. Nevertheless, the arguments are present making the syllogism created by the argument weak and the argument itself weak as well.  Hence, I’ve reached the conclusion that the argument analyzed is not sound and that I am not inclined to accept it.

Edward Snowden Deserves Freedom

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

When looked at deductively, the following syllogism is acceptable and correct because we are forced to accept the premise. However, when looked at inductively, the argument and conclusion change dramatically. First of all, the phrase “all heroes deserve freedom” is purely an opinion hidden in a premise, which then leads to a faulty conclusion. Does everyone think that heroes deserve freedom? If not then who gets to decide if they do or do not deserve freedom? Should there be some kind of rubric of what it takes to be a hero? If so who gets to create this? Also, what and who are heroes? The word “hero” is formally defined as “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.” Was leaking many classified documents noble or an achievement? This also depends on your personal opinion on what is noble or an achievement. To me, when someone mentions a hero, my mind automatically refers to superman or wonder woman. However, to someone else, when asked to think of a hero, they might automatically think of their father or a firefighter. This could then rase the question of whether or not the way you are raised has any affect on the way you see this syllogism. Also, what is freedom? Freedom from what? Who gets to decide what that freedom means? And if freedom is defined as “the power to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint,” then aren’t we all not free in some way? Should only heroes be free? The second phrase then states, “Edward Snowden is a hero.” Edward Snowden was an employee of the CIA before he disclosed thousands of classified documents to several media outlets. To those who got this disclosed information, sure he’s a hero, but is he a hero to the CIA or the American government? No, probably not. As a result of this he was even sent to an asylum for one year when he was in Russia. He was also considered a fugitive by American authorities who in June 2013 charged him with espionage and theft of government property. If his actions had these repercussions, then there must be people who do not agree that he is a hero. Therefore, to some, Edward Snowden does not deserve freedom. This syllogism then depends greatly on your personal opinion of who Edward Snowden is and what he did.

GO HOME UN

Argument:

If people vote to secede, they should be allowed to.

Crimeans have voted to secede.

Therefore they should be allowed to.

I want to start off talking about the syllogism itself. The first premise is valid (although we can’t know if it’s true without a deeper analysis) and the following conditions allow us to conclude that Crimeans have the right to secede. So the focus of my analysis will be that first argument, who defends that whoever votes to secede, is consequently allowed to do so.

When talking about secession, I am choosing the succession from governments, and not the ecological succession, although they are somewhat related. If a people decide to vote to secede, it’s because a portion (majority or minority) of the population has different values or opinions on topics than the current government. But how can we legitimatise governments? Who imposed that we should obey to laws written by a certain government? Are you asked at your birth to sign a contract to follow a set of rules? I don’t record doing so, the answer must be hidden somewhere in history. The first nomads walked in groups because it was easier to defend each other in a gathering of individuals, so the bottom line was protection from unknown creatures. This evolved into bigger groups of people, as man became sedentary, creating cities, humans needed protection from other groups of people. The need of protection is still present, the only difference is the source of danger. As these groups became more populous, it became hard to manage every single person, so the first set of rules was created. These were the first values of men put onto a shirt of paper, it was what characterised a certain group of people. But is protection the only attribute people seek in a government? What about power exerted by the ruler over a number of people? A ruler will have a hard time losing some of his citizens, since it may weaken his authority. When a people decides to secede, there might be numerous reasons (economic, religious, political, ethnical or cultural) but it all comes down to two opposing forces: the rebels (for some reason we give a negative connotation to the people who want to secede) are (or think) they are prepared to be self-defensive and have a particular reason for separating, but on the other hand, the ruling power will be very cautious in letting this group to secede and form a new nation (which will sometime become a potential rival). I want to take a moment and talk about the negative connotation to the word “rebel” which is usually the word given to such separatists. Separatists also has a negative connotation, I just can’t find some word that defines a person who desires to leave a country probably because of the American history. The American Civil War was all about a separatist movement, and since the North (the ones who refused to fragment the nation) won over the Southern Confederation, it was imposed negative connotation to every separatist idea in order to preserve the unity of the country, and prevent any future attempt to divide the country in smaller nations. However, in other countries (and consequently other languages) such term may have a positive connotation. In India for example, “संबन्धविच्छेद” meaning secession, is seen as such a positive term that it’s a wide subject in Indian education. India seceded from Great Britain with one of the most iconic figures of the 20th century, Gandhi. Because the population was such involved in this movement, separation was seen as a solution for the countries problems, and the word took a positive connotation. When involved in a situation of secession, it is very hard to look from both perspectives, but it’s the best thing to do. You need to look from the big nation as a whole (Would the secession harm the country? Will it be beneficial? Will it destroy basic values of that society?) and at the same time, access the reasons for why the minority wants to separate (Are they being oppressed? Are they culturally very different from the original nation?) An interesting theme that could be analysed is how to measure how culturally different a population is to another? I could start talking about this, but it will diverge too far from the main topic. After accessing all of the reasons for both sides, we should take a look at the possible causes, and even looking at the possible causes to if there isn’t any resolution between both parties. Many civil wars being fought today are because there isn’t agreement between the two groups, and men instinctively turns towards violence to solve his problems. Is one reason (cultural, economical, religious, spoken language…) sufficient in order to decide to secede or not? It is for sure necessary, but the question is, how many or how much of this reason should you have to start such a movement? The ultimate conclusion in all of this is that each movement has dozens, hundreds of variables that need to be taken into account. It’s not like math where you can plug in for an equation and you will get a strict forward answer. Each variable should be taken into account. The next question is either we let the two parties access each variable, or should we let other countries to get involved? If one of the parties is significantly stronger than the other one, he will probably access the variables that are in his favour, and use force to persuade the separatists to back down, so it is better to have some external mediator in such cases, but let both parties to negotiate the majority of the discussion. Many of Rousseau’s philosophical ideas relate to this theme, before governments, the state of nature allowed men to live in peace, but with larger groups, rules had to be made to control the population and offer protection from stealing. But in my opinion the best proposition made by Rousseau was the idea of the “general will”. It argues that it’s not the majority that is always right, but a political organism that is an entity with a life of its own. It is very challenging to attain the general will, where everyone is content, but it’s in my opinion what should be strived for in all diplomatic issues of secession. 

Should Crimeans be allowed to secede? Like I mentioned, I am not Russian, nor Crimean, I know very little on the culture, religion and economics, so I can’t give reasonable opinion, however, for what I know, as 95% of Crimeans speak Russian (it's a Russian research, so I should be cautious on trusting it, but it’s the only piece of information I have at my disposal at the moment), 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia, at this point, it is obvious that Crimeans want to join Russia, but do we have Ukraine’s voice in this? Are there any polls informing if Ukrainians want to loose a portion of their territory? The Ukrainian government has positioned itself against the decision. So as an international mediator, I would tend to give reason to Ukraine since they are being taken away Crimeia and the only information I have on Crimeia isn’t trustable. But I know very little on the subject, only persons involved in the situation have the biggest say in this discussion, external mediation should only be called when the situation shifts from negotiation to violence. 

Eric Snowden; Hero or Villain

     To begin, it is necessary to know who Eric Snowden. Eric Snowden, along with the WikiLeaks group, were responsible for the mass surveillance disclosures in 2013. Basically, he exposed to NSA for having illegally and secretively spied on the US' international partners and others. Eric Snowden was an ex-NSA contractor, and after having finished working there, he leaked top secret information about spying with the help of the aforementioned WikiLeaks group. To many, he is seen as a hero because he exposed, what some people call, an evil act committed by the NSA, but to others he is seen as a traitor for the same exact reason, he exposed and leaked top secret information about the NSA.
    In the syllogism, the first premise is, "All heroes deserve freedom." The first problematic word in that phrase is heroes. Hero can be seen as sort of an opinion based title. There is no specific parameter for something or someone to be considered a hero. Does a hero have to save a life, or commit a valiant deed (valiant is also and opinion), does he have to put himself in danger in order to help someone else? No, none of these things were specified. There are just some things that cannot and will never be able to be objectively judged, all in the same way. Just like hero cannot be judged, nor can freedom.  Google defines freedom as, "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines freedom as, "the quality or state of being free." While somewhat vague, you can tell that there are many different interpretations for the word freedom. My personal definition of freedom is most likely different from the definition of freedom of the person sitting next to me. Again, another definition that cannot be written in stone. But unlike hero, freedom has sort of the same overall general meaning across different people and interpretations. It can validly be said that freedom is the right to do and say what you wish, as long as it is legal. And the biggest problem of all comes when the idea of hero and freedom are combined. When the impossible task of validly judging whether someone is a hero or not is combined with the impossibly defined idea of freedom, it because impossible to find a hero who is worthy and deserving of freedom because you just cannot tell if a hero is a hero and if the freedom he is getting is actually freedom.
     The second part of the syllogism is a declarative statement, firmly showing that Eric Snowden is a hero. Obviously, we cannot just simply say that Eric Snowden is a hero. There is no way to say if he is a hero or not. All it takes is one person to say that Eric Snowden is not a hero for that fact to become opinion. Eric Snowden being a hero is purely opinion based and is not something that can be validly measured and decided.
     Once again, a combination of the three aspects, hero, freedom and Eric Snowden. This killer combination cannot really be explained and or measured. No one can easily say what a hero is, and whether that hero deserves freedom and what kind of freedom, and then to say if Eric Snowden is a hero and what kind of freedom, if any, does he deserve.