Peetem wrote:
1) Something evil is not perfect (for perfection means to lack nothing - e.g., virtue)
The problem with arguments that use this kind of reasoning is 'perfect in what respect?' or 'perfect in what way?' 'Perfect' is a very vague descriptor, and it is not at all clear just what that word means.
It's a bit like the fake argument one sometimes encounters in a number theory book:
All positive integers are interesting
Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that not all positive integers are interesting.
If so, then there must be some positive integers are not interesting.
If so, then the set of all positive integers that are not interesting must have a smallest element.
However, if a number is the smallest positive integer which is not interesting, then this fact is very interesting
So, the smallest positive integer which is not interesting is a very interesting number.
So we have a contradiction and we can conclude that all positive integers are interesting.
This argument seems completely nonsensical, and it is. But the question is 'what precisely is wrong with it?"
The problem is one of vagueness, what exactly does it mean for a positive integer to be 'interesting'? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. And since we don't actually know what we mean we say that a number is 'interesting', we can't really construct a logically valid argument about it.
We can't begin constructing syllogisms until we have defined our terms, and we haven't done that yet. We need to know what it means for something to be 'perfect' before we can start using 'perfection' as a criterion for anything.