Journal 6: Franklin

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’s plan for self-perfection involved 13 virtues: temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. Franklin focused on each virtue, one at a time. In a book, each virtue was allotted to a row and was recorded. Through this, Franklin discovered more faults, but continued to try and diminish them. Franklin often relapsed, especially on the harder virtues of this plan like Order. Even though Franklin never was able to achieve perfection, he was a happier person then he was before. Though Franklin was not able to reach his goal, he was benefited by his plan. He came out as a better person and learned many lessons he may have never discovered.  

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 a plan like Franklin’s, though it would be difficult, would improve me greatly as a person. I think that writing down my faults and finding a way to fix them or go about them differently is better than ignoring them and continuing to make the same mistake. It would help me be more aware of my actions and words towards myself and others. My top five virtues would be silence, temperance, frugality, industry, and tranquility. I think silence is important because often times I speak too much, and say things that may be hurtful to others or me. Temperance because often times I eat too much or drink too much when I’m not even hungry or thirsty. I become ungracious of what I have. Frugality, because I like to spend my money of useless things. Industry because working hard is important to go far in life. Tranquility because throughout my busy life, everyone needs peace and silence to keep them sane.

Journal 5 – from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (p.95-6)

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.

          #1He is making an emotional appeal. Logical fallacies: sentimental appeal, begging the question, faulty analogy. Comparing America to slavery. How do you know we are going to win would be begging the question. Argument: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” Things you get cheaply are not valuable. People are not willing to pay this price. Counter Argument: You can’t assume they will win

          #2: That God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction or leave them unsupportedly to perish. He is making a logical appeal. The counterargument is that God Almighty will give up a people to military destruction and leave them unsupportedly to perish. Logical Fallacies: Begging the question, dogmatic.

          #3:

Argument: If we do not fight now, our children will not have peace in the future. Good parents would fight for their children futures.

He is using logical appeals because there will be some separation eventually so why not have it now. Ethical appeal due to parenting.

Counter argument: shouldn’t fight because maybe things will work out in the future.

Logical fallacy: false dichotomy because only giving to extremes.

Begging the question: assumes once war is fought everything will be great but it might actually be worse.

          #4

Argument: American needs to defend ourselves. Compares king to a their and they are fighting a defensive war.

Logical fallacy: argument by analogy by comparing the king to a thief so that means we are forced to fight.

Emotional appeal because there is anger involved. Ethical appeal because they stand up to the king for their rights.

Logical fallacy: faulty analogy because the king and the thief are not similar and it author doesn’t support this argument will facts and statists.

Counter argument: Britain is more powerful.

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?   

Logical fallacies discussed in Paine’s argument would include: faulty analogy, false dichotomy, argument by analogy, begging the questions, and sentimental appeal. Overall, I feel that Paine had a good argument, but he did not back it up with enough facts or information. If he would have done so, his argument would have been stronger.