Is this a valid argument?
(P1) An extremely perfect fish cannot lack any perfection.
(P2)A perfect fish lacking existence is less perfect than one that exists.
________________________________________
(C) An extremely perfect fish must exist.
To determine whether the given argument is valid, we need to evaluate its logical structure. A valid argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
Let's analyze the argument step by step:
(P1) An extremely perfect fish cannot lack any perfection.
(P2) A perfect fish lacking existence is less perfect than one that exists.
________________________________________
(C) An extremely perfect fish must exist.
The argument appears to be structured as a modus ponens argument. Modus ponens is a valid deductive argument form with the following structure:
(P1) If A, then B.
(P2) A.
_________
(C) Therefore, B.
Let's reorganize the argument to match this structure:
(P1) If an extremely perfect fish cannot lack any perfection, then it must exist.
(P2) A perfect fish lacking existence is less perfect than one that exists.
_________
(C) Therefore, an extremely perfect fish must exist.
Given this restructuring, we can see that the argument is valid. If we assume that both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The conclusion is a direct result of applying modus ponens to the premises.
However, it is essential to note that the validity of an argument does not guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion. In this case, whether an extremely perfect fish actually exists is a separate question that would require additional evidence or reasoning.