Journal of Political Philosophy, EarlyView.

There is a growing sentiment that federal student loans should be allocated according to students’ expected earning potential. If federal student loans were given so that the government could make a profit, then such a system would make sense. But this is not so. Instead, the US government issues student loans with the goal of benefiting society—and, in particular, of benefitting the loan recipients themselves. Although some of this benefit is expressed in higher earning potential, much of it is not. (...) In this chapter, we argue that the federal student loan system should be structured to account for the intrinsic values that accrue to individuals both from increased education and from certain occupational choices. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'affirming a disjunct' (AAD). It presents a few examples of fallacies in arguments caused by an ambiguity in the English word or. Because context makes the meaning clear in everyday usage, we might never have thought about this ambiguity before, but we actually use the word or in two very distinct ways. One type of or is known as “inclusive”, and the other type is known as “exclusive”. (...) AAD occurs when someone mistakenly believes that an inclusive or is an exclusive or. Importantly, not every or statement can fall prey to AAD. The argument known as a disjunctive syllogism sets out two possibilities that are mutually exclusive. When someone is dead, she/he is not alive, and when someone is alive, she/he is not dead. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called the conjunction fallacy. It discusses a case of Linda who was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations. The chapter applies the concept the present fallacy to the Linda Problem by using a Venn diagram. When one needs to determine the relative probability of different scenarios, one way to prevent himself/herself from making the conjunction fallacy is to determine whether (...) any of the options is a subset of any other. If so, he/she can conclude that the subset option is not more probable. This rule works because a specific event can never be more likely than a general event that encompasses the specific event. The chapter explains why people are so frequently drawn in by the conjunction fallacy. (shrink)