- If Peter is virtuous, he manages a household with patience.
- If Peter is to be good, he needs patience.
Here's my attempt to understand 1 and 2. I get confused by the wording and necessity-sufficiency in general, so I try to think through them slowly.
1 says that without virtue (being virtuous), Peter cannot have (manage with) patience. That is, virtue is necessary for patience. That is, if Peter has patience, he must have virtue.
2 says that without patience, Peter cannot be good. That is, patience is necessary for goodness. That is, if Peter has goodness, he must have patience.
In simplified terms:
- If patience, then virtue.
- If goodness, then patience.
- If goodness, then virtue.
I can conclude 3 on the basis of 1 and 2. 3 says that virtue is necessary for goodness.
Here's the thing. For 3 to follow, I need to switch the order of 1 and 2. Normally, I believe this is fine. But the 1 and 2 here are part of a bigger argument, and in that argument, 2 must follow from 1, which is itself an intermediate conclusion. (It was simply inferred as a hypothetical syllogism, so there shouldn't be a mistake.)
Alternatively, I thought about adding an implicit premise, *, between 1 and 2, to establish some kind of relation between virtue and goodness:
- If patience, then virtue. *. If virtue, then goodness.
- If patience, then goodness.
But then * ends up switching the order of patience and goodness in 2.
What went wrong?