Around the age of two, every child’s favorite word is “why?”. They ask why the sky is blue, why they have to go to bed and why they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. Most parents will answer these questions with a simple, “because I'm your parent and I say so”. That argument, however, is a bad one because it does not offer any true explanation to the child. When making an argument there must be reasons to back up the claim. Comparing a child’s questioning to Descartes Meditations isn't as silly as it may seem because Descartes shows exactly how to support and make a good argument. In his Meditations, Descartes explains that the effect of anything must get its reality from the cause of that effect because something cannot arise from nothing. This means that something more perfect or more real cannot come from something less perfect or less real. For example, imagine you have a half empty glass of water and an empty pitcher of water next to it. The glass of water is the effect of pouring the pitcher which is henceforth the cause of water being in the glass. However, since the pitcher is now empty, pouring it will not cause any more effect of adding water to the glass. The reason for this is what Descartes explains in his Meditations, something more real cannot arise from something less real. Descartes uses this argument to determine that God is real. He says, “God necessarily exists because I understand a substance that is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful which created myself and anything else that may exist and the more I carefully concentrate on these attributes the liss possible it seems that any of them could have originated from me alone.”(Descartes 15) What Descartes is stating is that he knows that he is real, so if there must be a cause for his existence and that cause has to be God. This argument is one of the most famous in the history of philosophy, but good arguments can be made by people who are not world renowned philosophers. In this paper I will argue that supportive premises, rational conclusions, sound logic and an understanding of the audience's psychological factors make a good argument.
In every argument you must have reasons to support why the conclusion is true. These reasons are called premises and they are statements that lead to a conclusion. They can come before or after the conclusion and the reader must use their critical thinking skills to determine which statements are the premises and which is the conclusion. The conclusion is the inference drawn from the premises. In a good argument the premises must always be narrow and true. There are many bad arguments in which the premises that are too broad, for example, All cops are racist. Ken is a cop. Therefore, Ken is racist. In this example, the false premise is “All cops are racist”. Some cops may be racist and Ken may be a racist cop, however, the statement is too broad. Some premies in bad arguments are simply false. For example, My car is blue. Joe likes the color blue. Therefore Joe likes my car. The truth is however, that my car is yellow, also just because my car is a color that someone likes does not mean they have to like my car. A good argument must have premises that are true and support the conclusion. Without those key factors the argument will always be bad.
Additionally, good logic, which is thinking critically, is essential to a good argument. An arguments could have narrow and true premises but still be a bad argument because there is bad logic. You need both true premises and correct critical thinking to have a good argument having one or the other will result in failure. Using critical thinking skills you must determine if the argument has good logic by deciding if the premises are in fact true and if they support the conclusion. Imagine that there is an argument you are studying and you agree that the premises are true but they do not support the conclusion. For example, I am 19. It is sunny outside. Therefore, I am outside. The two premises are true, but the conclusion is not logical. The premises do not lead to any real logical conclusion because they are just random facts. A good argument must have true premises that lead to a logical conclusion.
As previously stated, a good argument must have true premises and good logic because false premises and bad logic can lead to false conclusions. There is no point however, in having a good argument if no one will listen to it. To get an audience to listen you must have an understanding of their psychological factors. Psychological factors are the audience's opinions, background, ethnic group and details that make them individuals. Knowing your audience is one of the best advantages when making an argument because if you know who you are persuading you can get them to not only listen but agree. Politicians argue and persuade people to vote for them by having good arguments and knowing their audience. For example, when Hillary Clinton was running for the Presidency a few months ago and her audience were women because she would have been the first woman President. Therefore, she argued about men and women equality and the safety of our children to appeal to American women and get them to vote for her to be the President. Knowing your audience means that you appeal to their ideals and values. It’s one thing it have a good argument with valid logic and premises, but it's another thing to have a persuasive argument by knowing your audience. A good argument persuades your audience to agree.
Many people believe that a good argument is good because it is true. This thinking, however, is incorrect because arguments do not have to be true for them to be good arguments. The premies have to be true and support the conclusion but the whole argument does not have to be ethically correct. Throughout history good arguments have been made that were very incorrect. For example, Hitler believed that blond haired and blue eyes Germans were the aryan race. Jewish people normally have dark hair and dark eyes. Therefore, he exterminated Jewish people. All the premies are correct and the logic, even though its extreme and disgusting is valid. The argument is a good argument even though it is ethically and morally wrong. It is good because both premises are true, they support the conclusion, and as history tells us Hitler was very personable and knew his audience well. This argument meets all the criteria that makes a good argument but it is still ethically incorrect. Of course, however, there were more reasons that Hitler decided to exterminate millions of people, whether they were Jewish, gay or against the Nazi party. All the reasons in the world, nevertheless, will never make what he did all right. Good augments do not have to be the truth and often are not and it is because of this that everyone must be wary. As Kant states in his Grounding for the Metaphysic of Morals “To act immorally is, on this view, to put oneself "above the law" — not the civil law of some society or other but the law one's own reason imposes upon one.”(Kant 5) Therefore, next time you listen to politicians and news broadcasts you must and will think critically and ask yourself if this argument is truly moral.
A good argument must have sound logic, supportive premises, rational conclusions and an understanding of the audience's psychological factors. It gives us good reason to believe the conclusion. The three most important conditions of a good argument is that all the premises must be true, the conclusion must follow from the premises and have good logic. Once you have a good argument it is important to know your audience to play to their morals, values and likes so that they listen to your good argument. Politicians have a great understanding of their audiences and use it to their advantage to get popularity and votes. Finally, good arguments can be untruthful and ethically wrong. Just because the logic is sound and the premises are true does not mean that the conclusion is ethically correct. Remember to always think critically and think for yourself.