Wouldn't the "things that don't suffer" and "things that want to suffer" circles overlap? So the "things that want to suffer" and "things that suffer" circles would be fully apart. So the Venn diagram does show your conclusion.

I don't understand your point. Let me give you another example:

1) All cats are mammals
2) No cats are dogs

What is the conclusion?

Draw a Venn diagram in the standard way and you'll see we can't draw any conclusion from it. Strange??!!

I suppose the difference with that example is that it doesn't include the tacit premise that only cats are mammals, whereas the first example does include the tacit premise that only living things are things that suffer, being that it doesn't seem to make sense for there to be suffering non-living things.

The answer's still not clear. Can you rephrase it in standard form.

You've already given the conclusion: No things that want to suffer are things that suffer. I'm simply pointing out that you can see this from a Venn diagram if you draw one. Given that all and only living things suffer, the "living things" and "things that suffer" circles will effectively be the same circle. And given that no living things want to suffer, the "things that want to suffer" circle will be outside the "living things" circle, and so therefore outside the "things that suffer" circle. No things that want to suffer are things that suffer.

Syllogisms from Orphan Black (you have to answer true or false):
Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
Conclusion: All bags are not pouches.

Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets.

Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
Conclusion: no maggots are welcome.

Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
Conclusion: Some doctors are rich.

All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap.

Then there's Dodgson/Carroll:

The only animals in this house are cats;
Every animal is suitable for a pet, that loves to gaze at the moon;
When I detest an animal, I avoid it;
No animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night;
No cat fails to kill mice;
No animals ever take to me, except what are in this house;
Kangaroos are not suitable for pets;
None but carnivora kill mice;
I detest animals that do not take to me;
Conclusion: Animals, that prowl at night, always love to gaze at the moon.

Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
Conclusion: All bags are not pouches — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets — Srap Tasmaner

Valid

Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
Conclusion: no maggots are welcome — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
Conclusion: Some doctors are rich — Srap Tasmaner

Valid

All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap. — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, the conclusion should be negative since one premise is negative.

What's your point though? Did you have a look at the premises in the OP. It seems we can't draw any conclusion from it. Can you help?

No point. You're on a logic kick, and I think it's cool that the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show). And one needs no reason to quote Lewis Carroll.

As for the OP, I thought that was settled. Were you expecting something else?

ADDD: You could conclude with Freud that all living things possess a death drive.

the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show) — Srap Tasmaner

Sorry to bother you but can you give me a link, if there's one? Thanks.

A link to what?

tv show

Oh.
Orphan Black.
The syllogisms appear in a sort of test some people are given, but not until season 3.

:)

C. No suffering thing wants to suffer.

I can't be bothered to draw the diagram, but label your circles 'living things', 'things that suffer', 'things that want to suffer', and shade out what the premises tell you are empty regions.

Not the most exciting conclusion I've ever seen.

thanks

Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer

Yes, the conclusion should be, as you said:


No suffering thing wants to suffer

But there's an error. The conclusion distributes the class ''things that suffer''.

However, it's not distributed (it should be) in the premises.

That's the problem. A more easier example is below (uses the same form):

All dogs are mammals
No dogs are cats
Conclusion???!!!

No cats are mammals???!!!

Well, No mammals are cats, to follow the exact same form, but the two are the same statement.
So indeed, these are both examples of conclusions that don't follow from the premises.

Oops, you're quite right, there can be non-living things that want to suffer and do.

Seems unlikely though! :D

You don't see a problem?

Both premises are false.
That being the case it is not worth persisting.
A tree is alive. A tree does not suffer. A tree does not want.

Even for living things that suffer, suffering implies not wanting. So the argument is circular and the venn diagram is not what you think it is.

Ok.

What about this then:

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are cats
What is the conclusion?

There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from them.

Is you handle "Mad Fool" more than just a name?

There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from them — charleton

Why?

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are cats

Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected.

You don't see a problem? — TheMadFool

Only that I was wrong.

Delete

Only that I was wrong. — unenlightened

I can't see where the problem is.

Argument A:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are fish
We can draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion:
No fish are mammals
FALSE. No such conclusion may be made. Premise two only means a fish is not a dog. According to that premise a Fish could be the same as a cow or a pig.

You are either taking the piss. or are just stupid. Which is it?

Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected — charleton

I think you have a point. Can you be more specific

I see something:

Argument A
1. All dogs are mammals
2. No dogs are cats
So,
3. Some mammals are not cats

Argument A is valid from the Aristotelean standpoint given that there's at least 1 dog.

However, from a Boolean perspective it's invalid. The Boolean perspective doesn't allow us to conclude anything from the premises. I wonder why.