Journal 6: Being Perfect is Impossible

1. Explain what was involved in Franklin’s plan for self-perfection?  What conclusion did Franklin come to regarding the effectiveness of this plan?

            Benjamin Franklin plan for self perfection was so he could live life without committing any fault at anytime.  In order to do this, he believed he would have to perfect the virtues.  As he began to research many different virtues, he summarized all of them into just thirteen.  His plan was that he would make a chart with theses virtues and focus on just one of them for a week.  Franklin began with temperance because he believed it was the most important.  Temperance is the virtue of balance, and if he could accomplish this virtue, it would make his life a lot easier.  It was not until he tried to focus on order that he realized his plan would not work out for him.  In the end, Franklin learned this was a bold project because it was impossible to accomplish.  God created us with original sin, which means we would not be perfect.  We were created with flaws.  There is always room for improvement but it is physically impossible to be perfect.  He even said it did not make him perfect and that people did not like perfect people anyways.  There is only so much you can do, but by doing this plan and focusing on his flaws, he became a better person.

2. Do you feel that a plan such as Franklin’s would improve you as a person?  Why or why not?  What would be your top five virtues? 

            I believe that Franklin’s plan would improve me as a person but it would very hard to accomplish.  It would help me focus on my flaws to correct myself.  I do not think I would be able to completely his plan, but I would give it my all to try my best.  My top five virtues would be loyalty, to be trustworthy, happiness, beauty, and courage.  I pick these because these would be best way to live life.  If I was able to always be happy with what I do, I think my outlook on life and myself would be more positive.   

Journal 5: He's Got Common Sense

1. Identify the specific argument that Paine is making in each paragraph.  For each of the arguments, identify whether Paine is making an emotional, ethical, or logical appeal and suggest an effective counterargument.

          #1 It is saying that we need to stand up against Britain and that it is hard to conquer a tyranny, but if they are successful, it will be the best victory.  It even states “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”  The argument is an emotional appeal.  It is also a sentimental appeal because logically it is not going to be easy, and they might get killed in trying to do so, but the thought of winning is a great feeling.  They do not focus on the fact that they are outnumbered, but they focus on the idea of how great winning will feel.  He is trying to have the audience focus on emotions and not think with their minds.  If you are not free country, you are subject of the king so the king can tax you back (ethical).  Logically, the Americans have very few advantages and might not win.  Paine was assuming triumph is going to occur.  A fallacy was that it is non sequel.  He compares taxation to slavery which is not related.                                                       

          #2 The argument is an opinion that god will not let a military fail.  That is an ethical or moral appeal because it is saying that their approach is right, so God will help them win.  God is on the Americans’ side and not Great Britain’s.  The counter argument is that the British feel that God is on their side.  The king was chosen by God, so why would God go to the Americans?  Therefore, it is an opinion that what the Americans are doing are going against God’s law.  Logically, how do you know if God is on your side?  God might not choose sides.  This is dogmatic because it is about an opinion or faith in God.  You cannot prove it.  The fallacy is that he makes these invidious names for the kings and Paine is attacking the king as a person.  He is begging the question, which is the argument in the paragraph. 

          #3 America would not be happy unless they separate from Britain.  This is an emotional and logical appeal.  Their motto was to fight today and be held captive tomorrow.  It is burning in America’s heart to be independent, so why not do it right away?  He is calling America dominion, which is illogical.  Thomas’s thought was that America should fight now so the future would be better for the children.  He also knew that the war was coming, so why not start fighting today?  This is an ethical thought because it is about how it would better their future for their families.  However, there is a lot of logic of why it would be smarter to go to war with Great Britain later.

          #4 The argument is that you should not go to war offensively, but defensively.  You do not go and attack someone for no reason and start war, but if they go and attack you, it is a just defense to fight back.  This is the difference between a just war and an unjust war.  It is an argument by analogy.  Paine is comparing a king to a thief breaking into your house.  If a thief breaks into your house, it is okay so fight the thief.  Therefore, Paine thinks it is okay to fight the king because the king is taking your money without a reasonable cause.  This is logical appeal because why would you not fight back if someone was going to harm you?  It is ethical appeal also because it is okay to fight back in self defense. The counter argument is that you cannot compare a thief to a king because a king has power and a thief has no rights to control you.  Once you enter a country, you must obey the king’s rules.  That the fallacy with Paine’s thinking.  You cannot compare someone with power to someone without power. 

2. Can you identify any of the logical fallacies that we discussed in Paine’s arguments?  If so, which ones?  Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of Paine’s arguments?  

There were many fallacies in Paine’s argument that I have pointed out above.  For example, he uses non sequiter, argument by analogy, and ad hominem as ideas to help his arguments when really they are fallacies.  There are many different strengths and weaknesses throughout his arguments.  For example, the argument about fighting for America now because it would better your child’s future is completely wrong.  If you go to war in your homeland, you and/or your children have a chance of dying.  Paine created this argument from strong emotions he has about disliking Britain.  There are no facts of why America should fight back.  There were just emotional feelings of how nice it would be to become a free nation.  Paine did not realize the amount of flaws he had in his writing as he began his argument.  

3. Formulate a question that you would like discussed based on the reading.

Based on the excerpt, what point/quote/and or argument did Thomas Paine write that you believe would have been the most influential to the readers of this The Crisis, Number 1?  Why?  Why did Paine only discuss the emotional factors in his writing? 

It would have been smart to establish reasons why the Americans should go to war against Great Britain.  Emotional factors just build up self confidence, not a victory.  However, I believe that the last argument had the strongest reasons for going to war.  Paine was right about fighting defensively and not offensively.  This argument gave the most realistic idea of why they should fight now for independence.  It was for self defense and sounded justly to go to war.  Paine only discussed the emotional factors in his writing because there was no real proof of why they should go to war against an army that is bigger, stronger, and more equipped.