Journal 6

From Ben Franklin’s The Autobiography (p. 80 – 83)

Write a well-developed paragraph in response to the following questions.

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

Franklin involved thirteen virtues to try and perfect himself. These virtues were temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. At first, Franklin thought this was a great plan that would help him greatly in the long run. In the beginning, he was right, and then he realized that being completely perfect is not the way to go. To have friends instead of frenemies one has to have some imperfections about themselves that they are happy with, like the axe making blacksmith that liked the speckled look in the axe.

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 think that yes, it would help, but one has to be happy with their imperfections at the moment. But I think that we should do little bits of each virtue everyday instead of practicing one a week. Chastity, eloquence, defiance, forbearance, and tact.

Journal 5

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 is saying that we need to stay up against Britain, and if they are successful, it will be the best victory. “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 an easy fight, and might get killed in trying to win, but the thought of winning is a great feeling. Do not focus on the fact we are out-numbered, focus the fact that we are going to win and how great it is going to feel. Focus on emotions and not think with their minds. “Well, 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 a secret opinion that God will not let the military fail. That is an ethical or moral saying that they are right, so God will help them win. God is on their side not Great Britain’s.

Counter argument- British feel that God is on their side. The king was chosen by God so why would God go with the Americans? Therefore, what the Americans are doing going against God. Logically, how do you know if God is on your side? God might not choose sides in the first place. This is dogmatic because it is about an opinion or faith in God. You cannot prove it. Fallacy: he makes these invidious names for the kings. He is attacking the king as a person. He is begging the question (argument in the paragraph)

#3 America would not be happy unless they separated from Britain. It is an emotional and logical appeal. Fight today and be held captive tomorrow. There is a strong yearning in America to be independent, so why not do it right away? He is calling America dominion which is illogical. Do it now so the children would not suffer. It is coming eventually so why not do it today? It is ethical because it’s about the future.

Counter argument: Why not fight tomorrow instead of today? Raise your children to be strong and independent men and women so that they can take what they know to win the battle. Be better prepared for the matters at hand.

#4) The argument is that you should not go to war offensively, but defensively. You should not go and attack someone for no reason and start a war but if they attack you first, it is a good reason for war. That is the difference between a just and unjust war. It is an argument by analogy. Paine is comparing a king to a thief to break into one’s house, so it is okay to defend yourself. This is logical because why would you not fight back if someone was going to hurt you or your family? It is ethical because self-defense is a good thing.

#5 Paine makes an ethical and emotional appeal. He says that he would rather be physically and spiritually destroyed than bend to will of the king. He goes into details about what he would endure then describes the king’s punishment. One logical fallacy used is ad hominem when he personally insults the king. He also used a hybrid of a red herring argument and argument from authority. He uses himself as an example, a form of authority, and leads the reader away from the topic and uses a strong description that was meant to inspire the reader. I don’t have a effective counter argument because this paragraph is more of a summery and doesn’t really argue any specific point.

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 are several logical fallacies such as false analogy, sentimental appeal, hyperbole, ad hominem, and false dichotomy arguments. I feel the strengths of Paine’s arguments are the vividness, its importance to the colonists’ troubles and common-sense. The arguments create a good image of the British wrong doings and the affected colonists and the effects of remaining peaceful. The weakness is that his essay, on several issues, does not provide enough information and goes to the extreme with descriptions, as well as give enough details to the British view of the taxes on the colonists and why they were founded.