Walking to and from Hoosac you have to take the path towards Murdock to get anywhere because of the construction. If your heading towards the campus center, the quickest route is get off the path and walk across the grass. Of course, most grasses cant stand high foot traffic, and I noticed that the grass was being trampled in some areas. This argument followed:
1) I like the appearance of living/well maintained grass in that spot
2) By walking on the grass in that spot I contribute to its killing and disheveling[un-well maintaining?]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore I will should not walk on the grass
Does the inference even work for this one?
Very interesting. Aristotle distinguishes between theoretical reasoning (logic proper), where the conclusion is a statement, and practical (i.e. ethical) reasoning, where the conclusion is not a statement but an action. You have here constructed something resembling an Aristotelian practical syllogism.
ReplyDeleteOf course, your refraining alone won't prevent the death of the grass, since the effect is not individual but aggregate. So perhaps you want to make a more general argument, appealing to those who (like you) value tidy grass to stay on the sidewalk. If enough of them are convinced by your reasoning and act on it, the situation might improve.
I'd like to believe the first premise applies to most people. But maybe most people disregard that premise mainly to save time and think, "One more wont step wont hurt".
ReplyDeleteIt really comes down to that like pretty things but if it inconveniences us we disregard that fact. And it is a quesition that if most of us believe in the first 2 premises, still will not act upon the conclusion.
Maybe there are a few other premises worth adding to possibly draw a different conclusion, such as time, blame on construction, laziness?
Just a thought