- One is good if and only if one does one's job well
- One does one's job well if and only if, and because, one is virtuous
- One is virtuous if and only if one is just
- From 1 and 2: One is good if and only if, and because, one is virtuous
- From 3 and 4: One is good if and only if, and because, one is just
- From 5: One is good because one is just
I have 2 worries here:
- 1 says that being good is logically equivalent to doing a job well. 2 says that doing a job well is logically equivalent to being virtuous. So I can say that being good is logically equivalent to being virtuous. This is captured by the "if and only if" in 4: one is good if and only if one is virtuous. But I'm not sure if the "and because" in 2 will complicate things, or can the 4 above really just follow through, with the "and because" simply tapped on?
- Does 6 follow from 5? As in, can I simply extract that one aspect in 5? But if not, I can allow for an additional premise: one is good if and only if one is just. This should then make the move from 5 to 6 okay?