Posted by Dr Geoffrey Thomas on June 14, 19101 at 14:39:35:

In Reply to: Machiavelli's Logic posted by Strato of Lampsacus on December 21, 1999 at 06:52:39:

: Isn't Machiavelli guilty of "affirming the consequent" when arguing that "as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws" (The Prince ch. 12)?

A different translation may help. In the Oxford World's Clics translation (Bondanella & Musa), 1998, 41, Machiavelli seems to be offering not an inference ('it follows that') but a conjunction ('since there cannot exist good laws where there are no good armies, AND ['e' in the Italian text = 'and']where there are good armies there must be good laws'). I.e., he's not inferring that because there cannot exist good laws without good armies, therefore where there are good armies there must be good laws. This would certainly be fallacious. Rather he's making a double claim, jointly erting two logically independent and compatible propositions : (a) there cannot exist good laws without good armies and (b)where there are good armies there must be good laws. The 'Since' doesn't take us inferentially from (a) to (b). What he seems to be arguing (if we continue the page) is that since good armies are so vitally important, given (a) and (b), therefore he's justified in leaving aside the treatment of laws and in discussing armies instead.

Geoffrey.Thomas2@btinternet.com

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup