
Alexander M. answered 06/26/21
Philosophy and English Tutoring
Hi Rose,
This argument looks invalid. The argument is as follows:
Premise 1: If punishment deters people from committing crimes, then punishment is justified.
Premise 2: Punishment does not deter people from committing crimes.
Conclusion: Therefore, punishment is not justified.
The form of this argument is as follows:
A = punishment is justified
B = punishment deters people from committing crimes.
P1: If B then A
P2: ~B
C: ~A
This form of argument is invalid. Denying B is not enough to conclude ~A. Practically, we can see this is the case in the fact that punishment might be justified for reasons other than its use as a deterrent. For example, punishment might be justified because it is the morally right thing to do.
We can see this in a more trivial example:
P1: If it rained last night then the ground is wet.
P2: It did not rain last night.
P3: Therefore the ground is not wet.
This is an invalid argument. The ground may be wet for any number of other reasons! Maybe the sprinklers went off, or a someone spilled their drink etc.