Deductive, Inductive, Analogical Reasoning & Rawls' Justice

Deductive, Inductive, and Analogical Reasoning

When we reason, we use two primary methods: deduction and induction.

Deductive Reasoning

If we start from accepted and reliable premises and infer partial conclusions, we use deductive reasoning. Deductive arguments are useful because, if well-constructed, they are necessarily true. Every good argument from premises must be reliable. In deductive reasoning, the question is not whether the premises are true or false, but whether the argument is valid or invalid—that is, whether the conclusion follows from the premises without any doubt.

Inductive Reasoning

Induction, however, starts with a series of specific observations that are repeated regularly. From this series, a general conclusion is drawn. Inductive reasoning is based on the repetition of a number of observations; therefore, the strength of an inductive argument depends on the number of supporting observations.

Analogical Reasoning

Another common form of argumentative discourse is analogy. An analogy involves arguing from a comparison between the subject at hand and another similar situation or fact.

Rationality and Goodness: Rawls' Theory of Justice

The American philosopher John Rawls developed a theory of justice that emphasizes human rationality as a key element in determining what is fair.

Rawls' Hypothesis

His hypothesis is that all people are capable of being reasonable and, therefore, can decide what is right and good. A purely rational individual might act out of selfishness, pursuing only their own benefit. However, a reasonable individual would consider the interests of others and seek cooperation, even if it means some personal sacrifice.

Principles of Justice

By considering these two principles, we can achieve a stable and just society. According to Rawls, justice and goodness in a society result from a balance between individual interests and the interests of others.

Rawls defines two principles:

• All people have the same freedoms and rights.
• Economic inequality is permitted, provided that it benefits everyone.

To ensure this state of justice, the State must strive to achieve the maximum welfare for those who are in the worst position in society. Rawls argues that if the state guaranteed equal income for everyone, individuals would have no incentive to work hard.

Natural Competition

Rawls acknowledges the role of natural competition, but insists on a minimum standard of living for the most disadvantaged.