Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
Quote:
I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...
1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.
|
I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly. |
I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.
Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:
1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.
but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)
You could get round it by saying something like:
1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to
pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.
but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.