2.7 Conclusions 55
• On its own the simple act of saying what
is so, or what is not so, can be judged
neither right nor wrong.
In such circumstances you can do one of two
things. You can either choose the sentence
which you think is the clearest expression of
the conclusion. Or you can summarise the
conclusion to which all three appear to be
contributing. For example:Without considering motives and
consequences, lying and truth-telling cannot
be judged right or wrong.
You could be excused for thinking that [5] is a
badly written argument, because its conclusion
is not clearly stated once and for all. However,
writers – good ones and bad ones – do this all
the time, as a way of emphasising or reinforcing
or clarifying the point they are making. In
analysing such arguments you must be ready to
summarise the conclusion and premises in your
own words. The main purpose of analysing and
standardising arguments is to simplify their
meaning. When dealing with real texts by real
authors you cannot always expect the job to be
done for you!• The primary purpose of argument analysis
is to identify or summarise the conclusion.
• When identifying a conclusion, we should
apply the principle of charity, by interpreting
the text in the way which makes the best
sense as an argument.Summary
it. On its own the simple act of saying
what is so, or what is not so, can be
judged neither right nor wrong.Activity
Which would you say was the main
conclusion here? Try to summarise it in your
own words.Commentary
What makes this a tricky argument to analyse
cleanly is that the conclusion is spread out,
rather than stated in a single sentence or
phrase. It is clear enough that the first
sentence is the target, setting up the standard
principle that we should always tell the truth.
It is also clear that the rest of the passage is
contesting the principle, by giving two
counter-examples as reasons:
R1 Some people tell the truth to cause
trouble.
R2 Some people do not tell the truth to
save others from distress, etc.Between them these reasons support three
closely related claims, out of which it would
be difficult to decide which was the
conclusion. Instead of forming a chain of
reasoning, they all seem to be making roughly
the same point, only in slightly different ways:
• It is simplistic to pretend that truth-telling
is always right and falsifying always wrong.
• The morality or immorality of a deed
depends on its consequences and the
motives for doing it.