Soul and body duality and Plato

1. The idea of a perfect circle is a human concept.
2. The idea of a perfect circle doesn't derive from sense experience.
3. All ideas gained in our earthly existence derive from sense experience.
So
4. Some human concepts aren't ideas gained in our earthly existence.

Plato.

-----------------------
'2' is suspicious because the concept of a perfect circle could be culturally taught.
'3' is a problem because we might have some ideas not gained from sense experience. For example, the idea of the square root of minus 1 in math. This is an imaginary and very useful concept that does not correspond to any sense experience.

Pragmatic argument to belief in God

1. The belief in God gives practical life benefits.
2.All beliefs that give practical life benefits are pragmatically justifiable.
So
3. The belief in God is pragmatically justifiable.
William James

-------------------------------
Question:
Does believing in God give practical benefits? Millions of people have been murdered in religious wars.

Issue:
We find "practical" in the subject and "pragmatical" (another word for practical) in the predicate. Read and consider 'All beliefs that blacken something are justified by the color black.'
It seemst similar to A=A. Meaningless.

God existance

1. The belief that there's a God is unnecessary to explain our experience.
2. All beliefs unncessary to explain our experience ought to be rejected.
So
3. The belief that there's a God ought to be rejected.

-----------
Valid? Indeed.
Solid? St. Thomas Aquinas disputed (1) to prove the existance of good.

If we changed it to:
1. They belief thate there's a God is neccesary to explain our experience.
2. All beliefs necessary to explain are experience ought to be accepted.
So
3. The belief that there's a God ought to be accepted.

Then, we have a proof of the existance of God. Science would say that it is just random walk and the result of the law of the large numbers .Your choice.

Are you an utilitarian?

1. All acts that maximize good consequences are right.
2. Some punishing of the innocent maximize good consequences.
So
3.Some punishing of the innocent is right.

Versus

1. No punishing of the innocent is right.
2. Some punishing of the innocent maximizes good consequences.
So
3. Some acts that maximize good consequences aren't right.

-------------------

The first argument justifies all wars and, the second, justifies peace under Hittler's, Maos, Stalins.
You choose because both are valid arguments. Their solidity will depend on our understanding of right and wrong, and on the value of a human life. Logic will not help you! What will help you?
That is something to discuss later.

All segregation laws are injust

1. All segregation laws degrade human personality.
2. All laws that degrades human personity are injust.
So
3. All segregration laws are injust

Martin Luther King.
------------
A valid argument.
Solid? It depends:

1.Segregation laws degrading human personality. We segregated the sanes from the insanes, guilties from innocents, etc. Segregration sometimes is necessary.

2. What is justices?