The notion of Peace - Essay Example

This paper will evaluate Dr. Abigail Forsythe’s argument. Question 1: Conclusion of Dr. Abigail Forsythe’s argument In summarizing Dr. Abigail Forsythe’s argument, it stands to be vague as opposing peace portrays a senseless mind. Trying to justify the activities of the armed forces as a way of bridging peace comes out as under reasoning. Instead of stating that people should have given war a chance in 1939 and peace in 1946, the chance of peace should have been embraced in both 1939 and 1946.

This would have saved people a lot of suffering. As long as individuals remain imprisoned in the field of self-oriented reasoning, they can easily justify their brutality to others. They excuse their tough eyes and supremacist rankings, ignoring the suffering they cause to others, and continue on rationalizing their actions and blocking awareness of the reality of their feelings and their fundamental oneness with other humans. Question 2: Important premises of Dr. Abigail Forsythe’s argument Dr.

Abigail Forsythe’s argument has four main premises, of which some stand as cogent arguments and some as irrational. One premise holds that saying people should not avoid war because of its inconveniences is insane because they do not avoid giving birth to babies even though they come with their own inconveniences. The second vital premise is based on the reason why parents have to take care of their babies. This argument is valid because every parent, despite the hardships, should dictate the course of the children; this stands as their sole reason of bringing them to this world.

The third premise stands at trying to justify Canada’s war against Hitler and Mussolini versions of fascism. The premises try to justify that it is Canada’s own right to fight for its rights in a war. This argument is vague as it does not spell out other options that Canada could opt for; hence it stands as an irrational argument. Any reasonable person would have thought of other options in the place of Canada instead of engaging in fights. The fourth point, trying to seek peace, lies in the people’s own context, hence is irrational.

The premise tries to justify that the country was right to seek war in 1939 and seek peace in 1946. The reasonable fact should be that peace should have been sought in 1939, and more peace in 1946. For this reason, Dr Abigail Forsythe’s argument, for seeking war in 1939, is irrational. Question 3: Quality of Dr Abigail Forsythe’s argument Dr Abigail Forsythe put out an argument whose thesis stood mostly of opposing the wrong things. The argument tried to justify the right things that people do.

Some of the fallacies in the argument are as follows: it stands wrongly to avoid war because there is much more to avoid than the inconveniences of deaths on sufferings. The second argument, which can be viewed as a good argument, is the one that says parents have the duty of looking after their children, not for any other reason, but because they brought them to this world. The third fallacy trying to justify Canada’s fighting as a measure of doing what stood to be right then shows a lack of reasoning.

Other options like peaceful mediation would have been adopted instead of going to the battle field to sort out issues. As a result of the battle, many lives were lost, the losing country lost its dignity, and property was destroyed. In the pursuit of peace, Canada, Germany and Italy could have