ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/24/85)
The current seat belt debate is a good example of a kind of flawed reasoning that, for want of a better term, I will call a "hidden premise." Consider what it really means for someone to say A, therefore B. Either that person implicitly believes whenever A, then B or something is missing from the argument. If A is an explicitly stated premise, and B is the conclusion, we can look at "whenever A, then B" as a hidden premise. Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument. People are saying: Seat belts save lives, therefore people should be required to use seat belts. The hidden premise here is: Whenever an activity saves lives, people should be required to perform it. Now, when the hidden premise is put this baldly, most people would disagree with it. Thus, the argument is actually hiding something. What could it be? I have my own ideas but would prefer to hear others' thoughts before I reveal them.
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (12/26/85)
Andrew Koenig finds a flaw in seatbelt proponents' reasoning: > Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument. People are saying: > > Seat belts save lives, > therefore > people should be required to use seat belts. > > The hidden premise here is: > > Whenever an activity saves lives, > people should be required to perform it. > > Now, when the hidden premise is put this baldly, most people would > disagree with it. Thus, the argument is actually hiding something. I would reply that If drivers and passengers wear seatbelts there will be fewer accidents and less personal injury in those accidents that do occur. This will save me money as a taxpayer and insurance purchaser. You may also avoid having an accident involving me. The hidden premise, such as it is, is pure old American self-interest. Martin Minow decvax!minow
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek) (12/31/85)
In article <4741@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument. People are saying: > > Seat belts save lives, > therefore > people should be required to use seat belts. > >The hidden premise here is: > > Whenever an activity saves lives, > people should be required to perform it. Actually, the hidden premise is probably more like: Whenever an activity saves many lives at trivial cost, people should be required to perform it. Which has the advantage of being eminently plausible. --The untiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (01/01/86)
> In article <4741@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument. People are saying: > > > > Seat belts save lives, > > therefore > > people should be required to use seat belts. > > > >The hidden premise here is: > > > > Whenever an activity saves lives, > > people should be required to perform it. > > Actually, the hidden premise is probably more like: > > Whenever an activity saves many lives at trivial cost, > people should be required to perform it. > > Which has the advantage of being eminently plausible. > > --The untiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek Triviality is in the eye of the beholder! In this case the so called 'trivial' cost is government poking its very long nose into our private lives. The slow accumulation of such trivial things will lead to less and less freedom for the individual and more and more power for the government. I agree that the cost of buckling up is trivial. However, government's REQUIREMENT that we do so carries a far heavier cost. Bob Silverman
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/03/86)
>>Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument. People are saying: >> >> Seat belts save lives, >> therefore >> people should be required to use seat belts. >> >>The hidden premise here is: >> >> Whenever an activity saves lives, >> people should be required to perform it. > >Actually, the hidden premise is probably more like: > > Whenever an activity saves many lives at trivial cost, > people should be required to perform it. > >Which has the advantage of being eminently plausible. > >--The untiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek ... and has the disadvantage of leading us down the garden path to utter totalitarianism. The question is: who is to decide what costs are trivial? The lawmakers? They will call anything trivial if it is in their interest to do so. That's why we're in the mess we're in today.