I read this arguement in my epistemology textbook. It’s humerous, but it works, or does it?
“Either I shall die of cancer caused by smoking or I shall not.
If I shall, then there is no point in giving up smoking.
If I shall not, there is no point in giving up smoking.
Therefore there is no point in giving up smoking.”
Comments…
haha, that is pretty funny, but it seems the second premise is the one that makes no sense, right? If you don’t smoke, then you will not die of lung cancer from smoking (unless by second hand smoke), so therefore you should not smoke. Since there is a possibility of death caused by smoking, then you should not smoke. Am I missing something the argument is saying?
Ok you have to split up the arguement.
First of all, the person is already smoking.
Now would you agree that there are only two options for a smoker, that being either YOU DIE OF LUNG CANCER or you DON’T DIE OF LUNG CANCER
Technically, there are those two options for anyone, but we’ll stick with the smoker.
SO…..
If the option so happens to lie that you will die, then there is no point in giving it up, because your going to die already anyway.
If the option so happens to lie that you won’t die, then there is no point in giving it up because you won’t die.
Therefore, because there are only two options and with both of them there is no point in giving it up, there is no point in giving up smoking.
OOO ooo! p.s: this argument seems to rest upon how long the speaker has ALREADY been smoking. If it was a teenage girl who has just started, chances are, she is not already affected enough by the smoking to have lung cancer, whereas a 65 year old man who’s been smoking for 40 years is probably more likely to make this statement true. ahh, the things I get interested in when I’m procrastinating…
First off, I can’t believe I’m posting 3 posts for this topic. Secondly, I hate that this proves that I’ve had to spend most of my day at my computer. Thirdly, Well Nate, you sorta threw in your own option of the person dying PERIOD whether or not they smoke. If the statement was that “Whether I die of lung cancer or not, I will die, therefore there is no point in giving up smoking” then yes, the argument makes sense, but when only being concerned with dying of LUNG CANCER, then I dont think it does. I feel like i’m missing something though.
I think your on to something there.
Pretty much, that’s what it comes down to
it’s just verbal trickery to get to there.
but i think the arguement more or less lies in the fact that he wants to keep smoking, and if he won’t die my as well keep smoking, and if he’s gonna die my as well keep smoking.
I’ll post what the textbook says later.
“Either I shall think to much, caused by being emo or I shall not.
If I shall, then there is no point in being emo.
If I shall not, there is no point in being emo.
Therefore there is no point in being emo.”
Morale of the story Dont be emo of you will get cancer.
So April and I took a look at this philosophical whateverness. What we have concluded is that it is simply someones justification about a vice of thiers that is hindering their life. so you die or you wont die…but why live your life under a mask of smoke?
basically, you can justify anything, just step into our apartment and you will find out…for example: caffine addiction – hey! its better than dropping hits of E, so drink up!
:) have a nice day nathan.
but i think what is missing is the fact that not dying from lung cancer caused by smoking is better because you’ll prolly live longer than if you did die of lung cancer caused by smoking. and since we can’t tell the future, than it you should stop smoking so that you do not get lung cancer and die earlier. because i think the point isn’t that lung cancer is what kills you, its that lung cancer kills you earlier. and so if you quit smoking your chances of living longer are greater.
thats why i disagree with the argument.
You guys aren’t reading the argument properly. It’s already decided if the guy is going to die or lung cancer from smoking or not. How he’s going to die is already laid out. So either way he can smoke. If he won’t die from lung cancer caused by smoking, then he can smoke all he wants to because it won’t kill him. And if he IS going to die from lung cancer caused by smoking, then he might as well smoke because there’s no avoiding the inevitable.