Van Parorijs Syllogism

In their efforts to argue readers to their respective positions, each of the authors use logical syllogisms to help readers understand their positions to a similarly extensive degree. In “Arguing for Basic Income”, Van Parijs uses syllogisms to explain how he reaches his conclusions. Though he does not directly state the fact that he presents syllogisms, the reader can observe many throughout the piece. One example occurs when he is addressing the issue of just income distribution. The major premise in the instance is just income distribution only arises from voluntary transactions when they emerge from a legitimate initial condition, one in which both individuals are under satisfactory conditions (9). Basically, transactions are undermined
Both writers attempt to sway the reader by appealing to an ideal, though these ideals differ between the two items. In Van Parijs’s work, the ideal appealed to is one of equality and justice. In one case, he mentions “liberty and equality” as potential benefits of a UBI (Van Parijs 3). By using this phrase, especially the equality portion, Van Parijs appeals strongly to his left-wing audience, as equality and fairness tend to be strongly valued on that side of the political spectrum. Another example occurs when he mentions how the current situation without a UBI is exploitative (21). This particular instance varies slightly from the previously mentioned one in that rather than making basic income more emotionally appealing, it increases negative sentiment for the status quo. Van Parijs aims to vastly improve sympathy for his position by using these distinct interests. Likewise, Cass also utilizes pathos, though he appeals to an ideal of meaning and morality rather than equality. For example, he observes that “a UBI would redefine the relationship between individuals, families, [and] communities” and “make self-reliance moot” (Cass). Both of these standards are considered exemplary by Cass’s conservative audience, so associating a UBI with the death of those goals is a strong emotional appeal. In addition, he
Their audiences and purposes were both split along ideological lines. Their syllogisms help the audience to comprehend and accept their logic, while the appeals to pathos that both authors use attempt to sway readers’ emotions. In addition, both Cass and Van Parijs not only build up their own arguments but tear down those of the opposition as well. Regardless of whether or not a universal basic income is the answer, there is no doubt that policymakers must find a solution to the potential issues posed by automation that will continue unrestrained. If they fail to do so, humans could find themselves antiquated and sharing the fate of the