How to Present Your Argument
This tutorial focuses on how to present philosophical arguments in the context of a paper. It is not designed to teach you argumentation or how to argue. The latter topics exceed a single tutorial.
Two Ways to Present Your Argument
There are two main ways to present your argument. Let’s call the first an in-text argument and the second in argument standard form (or standard form). In the case of an in-text argument, you simply write the argument in the body of the paragraph. You can do this by simply writing your conclusion and any premises that support that conclusion.
Many people fear death but my claim is that death is not bad. Consider that it is not bad for us that there was a previous time where we did not exist (call this our “pre-vital nonexistence”). Our pre-vital nonexistence is just like our posthumous nonexistence (our state after we die) in all relevant respects. If two things are alike in all relevant respects and if one is not bad for us, the other is not bad for us. Therefore, our posthumous nonexistence (our state after we die) is not bad.
In the above passage, the argument is presented by starting with its conclusion, supplying reasons in support of said conclusion, and finishing with a restated version of the conclusion.
The second way of presenting your argument is in some version of what is known as “argument standard form”. In argument standard form, you present your argument by first indenting from the body of the text and then listing and labeling the propositions of your argument. The premises of your argument are labeled as P1, P2, P3, and so on, while your conclusion is labeled as C. If we were to restate a version of the above argument in argument standard form, then it would be presented as follows:
- P1: It is not bad for us that there was a previous time where we did not exist (call this our “pre-vital nonexistence”).
- P2: Our pre-vital nonexistence is just like our posthumous nonexistence (our state after we die) in all relevant respects.
- P3: If two things are alike in all relevant respects and one of them is not bad for us, the other is not bad for us.
- C: Therefore, our posthumous nonexistence (our state after we die) – being dead – is not bad.
One presents an argument in argument standard form rather than in the text for several different reasons. First, by labeling the propositions of the argument (P1, P2, etc.), the parts of the argument are easier to refer to. For example, suppose we have just put forward an argument in standard form. One common practice after presenting the argument is to explain or justify the premises. In doing this, we will need to refer back to each of the premises. So, for example, we might write as follows:
“Premise “P1” says that we did not exist during the time before our birth. Intuitively, we do not regard this period of nonexistence as a bad thing. If Tek was born in 1982, he does not take it to be a bad thing that he did not exist in 1753.”
In the above passage, having the label “P1” makes it easier to refer back to this specific part of the argument. The use of labels also criticism of arguments clear. For example, if I were to argue that the above argument is bad, I could make it clear which part of the argument is flawed, e.g., I could say “the above argument is flawed because P1 is false.”
Second, some people find reading arguments that are put in standard form easier. One reason for this is that since the argument requires labeling premises and the conclusion, the reader need not guess which of the propositions are premises (reasons) and which proposition is the conclusion.
Third, another popular reason for putting arguments in standard form is one plans on altering the argument by supplying missing premises, arguments for premises, or modifying certain propositions in the argument. To illustrate, our earlier argument aimed to show that death (posthumous nonexistence) is not bad. Suppose we wished to extend this argument by using this conclusion as a premise (or as an intermediate conclusion: “IC”) for the argument that there is no reason to fear death. We might extend our above argument as follows:
- IC: Therefore, our posthumous nonexistence is not bad (from previous argument)
- P4: There is only a rational reason to fear the outcome of an event if that event has a bad effect.
- P5: The effect of the event of death is posthumous nonexistence.
- C: Since posthumous nonexistence is not bad (IC), there is no rational reason to fear the outcome of the event of death (see P4 and P5)
Presenting our argument in standard form thus allows the author to make clear that they are extending the previous argument.
Next, suppose someone has raised the following criticism of our argument: “P5 is potentially false if there is a heaven or hell”. Rather than providing an argument concerning the reality of life after death, we only wish to modify the scope of P5. Rather than present the entire argument again with one modified premises, we might instead indicate this modification as follows (modifying the label “P5 “ as “P5*”):
- P5*: Assuming there is no afterlife (heaven, hell), the effect of the event of death is posthumous nonexistence.
Finally, let’s assume that we wanted to provide an argument for P5 rather than modifying it as P5*. One way we could do this is by providing a subargument. To do this, we might use P5 as our conclusion and supply premises for P5 in the form P5.1, P5.2, and so on. Here is an example:
- P5.1: The only two possible effects after death are life after death or nonexistence.
- P5.2: There is no life after death.
- P5: The effect of the event of death is posthumous nonexistence.
Video Resources
- Argument Standard Form
- Explaining Philosophical Arguments by Ryan Pollock
- How to Criticize a Philosophical Argument by Ryan Pollock