Analysis Of Monty Python: The Annoying Peasant
Monty Python - The Annoying Peasant
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor Mark Balto
December 1, 2014
Who decides Supreme Executive Power?
During his quest to find the Holy Grail, King Arthur comes to a castle and a group of Peasants gathering filth. After a strained introduction, it becomes obvious King Arthur and the Peasants do not agree on their own particular form of government. The Lady of the Lake appointed King Arthur. King Arthur simply had to be in the right place at the right time to catch the sword and become King. The Peasants believe in an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune. Under the Peasants government, the executives take turns in office and the majority votes on all decisions.
Premises
Peasants’ argument to the appointment
“Strange woman …show more content…
King Arthurs’ premise
Simply stated, I got a sword from the Lady in the Lake therefore, I am King Ruler of all Britain.
The Peasants argument is deductive, sound, and strong. Their premise of a woman in a lake with swords to dole out does not fit the structure of proper government appointment. King Arthur’s form of government is merely a dictatorship to be a stronghold and take advantage of the weak. A stable government is formed by a vote of executives where the majority rules. The Peasants argument is backed with thought; how to appoint an executive, how to decide on new laws, and length of office.
King Arthur on the other hand has an invalid, unsound, and weak argument. His premise is simply stated; I got a sword from a woman in a lake, and that makes me King. Instead of defending his appointment, he refuses to take part in the debate and focuses on his agenda, the castle, and The Holy Grail. Arthur does not have a leg to stand on; neither does the Black Knight but that is a whole other argument.
Closing
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor Mark Balto
December 1, 2014
Who decides Supreme Executive Power?
During his quest to find the Holy Grail, King Arthur comes to a castle and a group of Peasants gathering filth. After a strained introduction, it becomes obvious King Arthur and the Peasants do not agree on their own particular form of government. The Lady of the Lake appointed King Arthur. King Arthur simply had to be in the right place at the right time to catch the sword and become King. The Peasants believe in an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune. Under the Peasants government, the executives take turns in office and the majority votes on all decisions.
Premises
Peasants’ argument to the appointment
“Strange woman …show more content…
King Arthurs’ premise
Simply stated, I got a sword from the Lady in the Lake therefore, I am King Ruler of all Britain.
The Peasants argument is deductive, sound, and strong. Their premise of a woman in a lake with swords to dole out does not fit the structure of proper government appointment. King Arthur’s form of government is merely a dictatorship to be a stronghold and take advantage of the weak. A stable government is formed by a vote of executives where the majority rules. The Peasants argument is backed with thought; how to appoint an executive, how to decide on new laws, and length of office.
King Arthur on the other hand has an invalid, unsound, and weak argument. His premise is simply stated; I got a sword from a woman in a lake, and that makes me King. Instead of defending his appointment, he refuses to take part in the debate and focuses on his agenda, the castle, and The Holy Grail. Arthur does not have a leg to stand on; neither does the Black Knight but that is a whole other argument.
Closing