Are Socretes' Arguments about Death Sound?

Whether the discussion of Socrates is reasonable or not. Socrates believes that people are not afraid of what they do not know. He thinks that people should not be afraid of death because no one has an absolute understanding of death in the natural world. He is doing some arguments in support of this. In this article, I look at his two arguments and conclude that his argument is irrational as its opinion is not true. First of all, in order to prove that Socrates' claim is irrational, we must know something rational argument. In a reasonable argument, all premises must be true.

Soundness - to judge the quality of discussion. If it has a real premise and a true conclusion and it is valid, that is reasonable. Moral arguments are rarely logically effective and therefore rarely justified in a strict logical sense. But our goal is to avoid false reasoning and to create as strong and persuasive discussion as possible. Subjects of moral value - non-moral community deserves ethical considerations (eg, human corpse, human fetus, specific animals, environment, art and culture are subjects of moral value). Unless there is a good reason, they should not hurt, but they are not the same as moral values.

Parameters that meet these two requirements are called sounds. In other words, rational discussion is a valid argument with reality premise. Rational discussion is the only argument to prove that conclusion. Any argument whose inference is invalid, or at least with erroneous assumptions, is called incomplete. Irrational arguments can not prove their conclusion. Logic focuses on the validity of the reasoning, not the credibility of the facility. Determining whether the premise is correct is the responsibility of other knowledge fields (law, common sense, science, ethics, etc.). The effective meaning of the discussion is that when the current proposal is true the conclusion can not be true. We sometimes explain this according to "possible situation": there is no possible situation, the premise is true, but the conclusion is not

All the discussions made can be judged by a simple evaluation of the site whether it is reasonable or not. Let's see the robustness of these two arguments. Let's start with sound parameters. The premise is that in fact "everything is correct" if the government provides medical treatment for free, it must increase taxes. The government has no way to incorporate health plans into the public services that are provided, but only includes large-scale plans without tax increases. People in this country will not vote for this expenditure to be effective. While some may be receiving medical treatment as a national problem, the scope of such projects is too large to make changes to our existing systems. Clearly, medical care in the US will still be a private company. Another argument, the first discussion is not healthy.