Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy, the absence of government. ββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββ βββββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββββββ βββ βββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ ββββββββββββ ββββββ βββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββββ
The authorβs implicit conclusion is that the theoristsβ view that society can flourish in a condition of anarchy (in the sense of absence of government) isnβt acceptable. This is based on the premise that any acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. The author believes the theoristsβ view is something that promotes anarchy (in the sense of chaos), which is why he believes the view isnβt acceptable.
The author inappropriately interprets the term βanarchyβ in a different way from how the theorists used it. The theorists defined anarchy as the absence of government. But the author mistakenly thinks the theoristsβ view condoned anarchy in the sense of chaos (absence of order). This misrepresents the theoristsβ view and renders the authorβs criticism unpersuasive.
The reasoning in Bowers's argument ββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββ
the meaning of β βββ ββββ ββββββ βββββββββ ββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ
the argument fails ββ ββββ ββββ βββββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββ ββββββββ ββ β ββββββ ββββββββββ
the truth or βββββββ ββ β ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββ ββββ
the argument presumes, βββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββββ
it is unreasonable ββ ββββββ β ββββ ββββββ βββββββ ββ βββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββ