Final Project Argument Options
PHI 103: Informal Logic
Final Project Argument Options
For your Final Project, you will select one of the arguments below to evaluate. You will also create a counter-
argument to the argument you choose. Refer to the Final Project instructions in the online classroom for details.
Select the box of the argument of your choice to view the excerpt. Navigate back to the main screen by
selecting “back to main.”
All Animals are Equal by P. Singer
Wealth of Nations Book I by A. Smith
The Problems of Philosophy by B. Russell
On Liberty By J. S. Mill
Second Treatise of Government by J. Locke
Alienated Labor By K. Marx
Phaedo By Plato
Applied Eugenics By P. Popenoe and R.H.
Johnson
In Defense of Traditional Marriage
By R. Anderson
The Case for Optimal Pollution
By W. Baxter
The Social Responsibility of Business
By M. Friedman
All Animals Are Equal
Click here to access this argument: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf
APA Citation:
Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.) Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-
162) [Acrobat Reader version]. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf
All Animals Are Equal by P. Singer Back to Main
Of the Principle Which Gives Occasion to the Division of Labour
This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any
human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary,
though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no such
extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.
Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account
can be given, or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and
speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race
of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running
down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards
his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is
not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that
particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with
another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal, by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that
yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man, or of
another animal, it has no other means of persuasion, but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A
puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours, by a thousand attractions, to engage the attention of its
master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren,
and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every
servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every
occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great
multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other
race of animals, each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state
has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of
his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail
if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him
what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that
which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this
manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It
is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to
From The Wealth of Nations by A. Smith Back to Main
them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the
benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed
people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately
provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with
them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as
those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he
purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other clothes which suit him
better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he
has occasion.
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase, that we obtain from one another the greater part of those
mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives
occasion to the division of labour. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds, a particular person makes bows and
arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle
or for venison, with his companions; and he finds at last that he can, in this manner, get more cattle and venison,
than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of
bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making
the frames and covers of their little huts or moveable houses. He is accustomed to be of use in this way to his
neighbours, who reward him in the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his interest
to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a
third becomes a smith or a brazier; a fourth, a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the
clothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his
own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour
as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate
and bring to perfection whatever talent of genius he may possess for that particular species of business.
The difference of natural talents in different men, is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the
very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is
not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the
most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not
so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. When they came in to the world, and for the first six
or eight years of their existence, they were, perhaps, very much alike, and neither their parents nor play-fellows
could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after, they come to be employed in very
different occupations. The difference of talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at
last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any resemblance. But without the disposition
to truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of
life which he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the same work to do, and there could
have been no such difference of employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents.
As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different
professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of animals,
acknowledged to be all of the same species, derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius,
than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. By nature a philosopher is
not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a grey-hound, or a grey-
hound from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd’s dog. Those different tribes of animals, however, though all
of the same species are of scarce any use to one another. The strength of the mastiff is not in the least supported
either by the swiftness of the greyhound, or by the sagacity of the spaniel, or by the docility of the shepherd’s
dog. The effects of those different geniuses and talents, for want of the power or disposition to barter and
exchange, cannot be brought into a common stock, and do not in the least contribute to the better
accommodation and conveniency of the species. Each animal is still obliged to support and defend itself,
separately and independently, and derives no sort of advantage from that variety of talents with which nature
has distinguished its fellows. Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one
another; the different produces of their respective talents, by the general disposition to truck, barter, and
exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the
produce of other men’s talents he has occasion for.
APA Citation:
Smith, A. (1776). Of the principle which gives occasion to the division of labour. In The
wealth of nations (Book 1). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-
h/3300-h.htm#link2HCH0002
On Our Knowledge of Universals
We are all convinced that the sun will rise to-morrow. Why? Is this belief a mere blind outcome of past
experience, or can it be justified as a reasonable belief?
It is obvious that if we are asked why we believe that the sun will rise to-morrow, we shall naturally
answer ‘Because it always has risen every day’. We have a firm belief that it will rise in the future, because it
has risen in the past. If we are challenged as to why we believe that it will continue to rise as heretofore, we
may appeal to the laws of motion: the earth, we shall say, is a freely rotating body, and such bodies do not cease
to rotate unless something interferes from outside, and there is nothing outside to interfere with the earth
between now and to-morrow. Of course it might be doubted whether we are quite certain that there is nothing
outside to interfere, but this is not the interesting doubt. The interesting doubt is as to whether the laws of
motion will remain in operation until to-morrow. If this doubt is raised, we find ourselves in the same position
as when the doubt about the sunrise was first raised.
The only reason for believing that the laws of motion will remain in operation is that they have operated
hitherto, so far as our knowledge of the past enables us to judge. It is true that we have a greater body of
evidence from the past in favour of the laws of motion than we have in favour of the sunrise, because the
sunrise is merely a particular case of fulfilment of the laws of motion, and there are countless other particular
cases. But the real question is: Do any number of cases of a law being fulfilled in the past afford evidence that it
will be fulfilled in the future? If not, it becomes plain that we have no ground whatever for expecting the sun to
rise to-morrow, or for expecting the bread we shall eat at our next meal not to poison us, or for any of the other
scarcely conscious expectations that control our daily lives. It is to be observed that all such expectations are
only probable; thus we have not to seek for a proof that they must be fulfilled, but only for some reason in
favour of the view that they are likely to be fulfilled.
The belief that the sun will rise to-morrow might be falsified if the earth came suddenly into contact
with a large body which destroyed its rotation; but the laws of motion and the law of gravitation would not be
infringed by such an event. The business of science is to find uniformities, such as the laws of motion and the
law of gravitation, to which, so far as our experience extends, there are no exceptions. In this search science has
been remarkably successful, and it may be conceded that such uniformities have held hitherto. This brings us
From The Problems of Philosophy by B. Russell Back to Main
back to the question: Have we any reason, assuming that they have always held in the past, to suppose that they
will hold in the future?
It must be conceded, to begin with, that the fact that two things have been found often together and
never apart does not, by itself, suffice to prove demonstratively that they will be found together in the next case
we examine. The most we can hope is that the oftener things are found together, the more probable it becomes
that they will be found together another time, and that, if they have been found together often enough, the
probability will amount almost to certainty. It can never quite reach certainty, because we know that in spite of
frequent repetitions there sometimes is a failure at the last, as in the case of the chicken whose neck is wrung.
Thus probability is all we ought to seek.
It might be urged, as against the view we are advocating, that we know all natural phenomena to be
subject to the reign of law, and that sometimes, on the basis of observation, we can see that only one law can
possibly fit the facts of the case. Now to this view there are two answers. The first is that, even if some law
which has no exceptions applies to our case, we can never, in practice, be sure that we have discovered that law
and not one to which there are exceptions. The second is that the reign of law would seem to be itself only
probable, and that our belief that it will hold in the future, or in unexamined cases in the past, is itself based
upon the very principle we are examining.
It should be noted that probability is always relative to certain data. In our case, the data are merely the
known cases of coexistence of A and B. There may be other data, which might be taken into account, which
would gravely alter the probability. For example, a man who had seen a great many white swans might argue,
by our principle, that on the data it was probable that all swans were white, and this might be a perfectly sound
argument. The argument is not disproved by the fact that some swans are black, because a thing may very well
happen in spite of the fact that some data render it improbable. In the case of the swans, a man might know that
colour is a very variable characteristic in many species of animals, and that, therefore, an induction as to colour
is peculiarly liable to error. But this knowledge would be a fresh datum, by no means proving that the
probability relatively to our previous data had been wrongly estimated. The fact, therefore, that things often fail
to fulfil our expectations is no evidence that our expectations will not probably be fulfilled in a given case or a
given class of cases. Thus our inductive principle is at any rate not capable of being disproved by an appeal to
experience.
The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event
must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life All
such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no
instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive
principle is assumed.
APA Citation:
Russell, B. (1912). On our knowledge of universals. In The problems of philosophy.
Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-
h.htm#link2HCH0012