What Is a Bachelor?
Most people, if asked for a definition of the word “bachelor,” would answer, “an unmarried adult male.” Is this adequate? Each of the three properties mentioned—being unmarried, being adult, and being male—is necessary for being a bachelor, but are the three properties, together, sufficient? In other words, is every unmarried adult male a bachelor?
I say no. My friend Paul, who is divorced, is an unmarried adult male, but it seems odd to describe him as a bachelor. Why? Because Paul was once married. Isn’t a bachelor an adult male who has never been married? Let’s revise our analysis, for we appear to be missing at least one necessary condition for bachelorhood. A bachelor (let us say, provisionally) is an unmarried and never-married adult male. Since someone who is never-married is unmarried (though not conversely), we can dispense with the first of the four properties, which leaves this: A bachelor is a never-married adult male.
Something is still amiss. Pope Francis (the head of the Roman Catholic church) is a never-married adult male, but it seems odd to describe him as a bachelor. Why? Because Pope Francis is ineligible to be married. (We might say that he’s not “on the marriage market.”) Isn’t a bachelor a never-married adult male who is eligible to be married? Let’s revise our analysis, for, once again, we appear to be missing at least one necessary condition for bachelorhood. A bachelor (let us say, again provisionally) is a never-married but eligible-to-be-married adult male. Since only adults are eligible to be married, we can dispense with the third of the four properties, which leaves this: A bachelor is a never-married but eligible-to-be-married male. Formally:
For all persons x, x is a bachelor if and only if (1) x is male, (2) x has never been married, and (3) x is eligible to be married.
Each of the three listed conditions is necessary for bachelorhood, and the three conditions together are sufficient. If you disagree with this analysis, you must do one or more of the following:
1. Give an example of a bachelor who is not male;
2. Give an example of a bachelor who has been married;
3. Give an example of a bachelor who is ineligible to be married; or
4. Give an example of a never-married but eligible-to-be-married male who is not a bachelor.
Doing the first of these four things shows that being male is not a necessary condition for being a bachelor. Doing the second thing shows that never having been married is not a necessary condition for being a bachelor. Doing the third thing shows that being eligible to be married is not a necessary condition for being a bachelor. Doing the fourth thing shows that being a never-married but eligible-to-be-married male is not a sufficient condition for being a bachelor.
How accurate are the dictionaries? The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) defines “bachelor” as “an unmarried man.” (I assume that “man” means “adult male.”) Both properties are necessary for bachelorhood, but the two together are insufficient. My friend Paul is an unmarried man but not a bachelor. Pope Francis is an unmarried man but not a bachelor.
The New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed., 2010) defines “bachelor” as “a man who is not and has never been married.” (Once again, I assume that “man” means “adult male.”) Both properties are necessary for bachelorhood, but the two together are insufficient. Pope Francis is not and has never been married, but he is not a bachelor.
An odd feature of the second definition is that the first property listed—not being married—is redundant. If x has never been married, then x is not married (but not conversely). (Technically speaking, ‘x has never been married’ is the superaltern of ‘x is not married’.) The definition could have said, simply, that “bachelor” means “a man who has never been married.” This is still inadequate, however, for reasons given in the previous paragraph. Pope Francis is a man who has never been married, but he is not a bachelor.
I should point out that people’s linguistic intuitions differ. I said that it seems odd to me to describe either my friend Paul or Pope Francis as a bachelor. If these things do not seem odd to you, then your analysis of bachelorhood will differ from mine. (We might say, in such a case, that you and I have different conceptions or understandings of the concept, and we might cite as the reason for this the vagueness of the term “bachelor.”) The point of this handout is not so much to analyze bachelorhood correctly, but to show you how one goes about analyzing any concept. The objective of an analysis is to state conditions that are both individually necessary and jointly sufficient for application of the concept.[1]
A final comment. Analyzing a concept (such as bachelorhood) is the same as defining a word (“bachelor”). The first is in conceptual mode, the second in linguistic mode. The meaning of a word is simply the concept (or idea) that the word expresses. Dictionaries report word meanings. In so doing, they elucidate our shared concepts. But, as we have seen, even dictionaries can be wrong.
[1] Fred Feldman says that “a criterion of right action” is “a statement of necessary and sufficient conditions” for “rightness.” See Fred Feldman, Introductory Ethics (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 20. The criterion in question has the form ‘Act x is right if and only if x satisfies condition C’. A criterion of bachelorhood is a statement of necessary and sufficient conditions for being a bachelor. This criterion has the form ‘Person x is a bachelor if and only if x satisfies condition C’.