Epistemology
Question:
Read the attached article that appeared in The Philosophers’ Magazine , entitled ” The Drug Laws Don’t Work .” The article contains some very interesting inductive argumentative strategies, including analogy, causalar gument, and enumerative induction. It also comes close to committing some fallacies discussed in Chapter 7,such as weak analogy, false cause (remember there are several species), andhasty generalization. Once you’ve read the article, do the following ( Please answer the following questions) No Essay style , just answer questions below 1. Find an instance of where the argument comes dangerously close to committing a fallacy and explain why you think this is so. Be sure to (a) name the fallacy, (b) define it, and (c) explain why you think it’s committed. 2. There are parts of this argument that are quite compelling. Explain why any one inductive inference pattern that it uses (such as inductive generalization (enumerative induction), statistical syllogism, analogy, or causal argument) makes it an effective argument. Be sure to (a) identify the argument pattern and (b) reconstruct its premise(s) and conclusion. 3. Do you think that drugs should be legalized, or perhaps that only certain drugs should be legalized? What are your reasons?
One instance where the argument comes dangerously close to committing a fallacy is when the author argues that the failure of drug laws in other countries is evidence that drug laws in general do not work. This is an example of a weak analogy fallacy, as the failure of drug laws in one country does not necessarily mean that drug laws in all countries will fail.
The weak analogy fallacy occurs when two things are compared, but the comparison is not strong enough to support the conclusion. In this case, the failure of drug laws in one country is being used as evidence for the failure of drug laws in general, but the comparison is not strong enough as the conditions and circumstances in each country are different.
One inductive inference pattern that makes the argument effective is the use of enumerative induction, also known as inductive generalization. The author presents several examples of countries where drug laws have failed and uses this to make a generalization that drug laws do not work. This is an effective argument pattern because it uses specific examples to support a general conclusion.
For example, the premise of the argument is that in several countries, drug laws have failed to decrease drug use, decrease crime, and decrease the spread of disease. And the conclusion is that drug laws don’t work in general.
My personal opinion is that drugs should be legalized and regulated, but only certain drugs should be made available for recreational use. The reason for this is that the current approach of criminalizing drugs has not been effective in reducing drug use and has led to negative consequences such as increased crime and mass incarceration. By legalizing and regulating drugs, the government would be able to control the quality and distribution of drugs, which would help to reduce harm to individuals and society. Additionally, the resources currently used to enforce drug laws could be used for more effective harm reduction strategies, such as education and treatment for addiction.
