Contemporary Moral Problems

lex talionis

"An eye for an eye." A principle of equality: whatever unjust benefit you took will be taken from you.

Pornography: Mill's responses to Kristol and Kristol's replies to Mill

1. Mill: If it's bad entertainment, let's write something better! 1(a). Kristol: Infantalism is a permanent danger in the realm of sexuality. It is hard to be an adult and to have the sexuality of someone who respects other people. 1(b). Kristol: Pornography severs the link between humanity and sexuality for the viewer, and makes it easy to retreat into solitude. 2. Mill: Being paternalistic is disrespectful of people's agency. 2(a). Kristol: Pornography itself makes people unable to govern themselves and democratic societies require people with the right kinds of attitudes toward one another.

forms of deductive arguments

1. Modus ponens (MP) 2. Modus tollens (MT) 3. Disjunctive syllogism (DS)

types of inductive fallacies

1. Small sample size (i.e., too few samples) 2. Unrepresentative samples 3. Exclusion 4. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

fallacy of unrepresentative samples

A fallacious form of inductive argument in which conclusions are offered that are stronger than can be inferred from relative homogeneity of the samples. Example: "No one who lives in my neighborhood uses food stamps, so it's pretty clear that the food stamp program is unnecessary."

Consequentialism

A type of ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of actions, where bad consequences are deemed ethical wrongs.

teology

relationship to purposes

Pornography: obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California [1973])

(a) standards of local area (b) specifically defined by state law (state standards) (c) as a whole, lacking in serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value [Note: Obscenity law only covers speech without any value.]

Abortion: central argument

1. A fetus is a human being. 2. It's wrong to kill a human being. 3. Therefore, it's wrong to kill a fetus. The Pope's and Warren's argument both relate to this main argument.

types of deductive fallacies

1. Affirming the consequent 2. Denying the antecedent 3. False dilemma 4. Equivocation 5. Argument ad hominem 6. Begging the question 7. Complex question

Punishment: objections to Utilitarianism

1. Aiming at good consequences may end up meaning that we use people as mere means. 2. We might be willing to punish the innocent in order to maximize human happiness. 3. We might be willing to punish very harshly if the general public is made happy by this punishment.

objections to the harm principle

1. All actions have some effect on others. Why shouldn't we stop people from gambling away their kids' money, for instance? 2. We protect children from their own stupidity. Why not do the same for adults? 3. What about the bad examples we might have if people are allowed to be dumb?

Abortion: things missed by both the Pope and Warren

1. Aren't there other possible moments of significance? Both authors are fairly uncompromising. Shouldn't we also look at other milestones? 2. And what about gender- the equality of men and women? Women face differential burdens on careers, differential transparency of the body, and differential expectations of how much they should sacrifice themselves for others.

Abortion: objections to Warren and responses by Warren

1. But a fetus is a potential person. Does that make a difference? 1(a). Warren: No. Potentiality tells us nothing about rights. For example, imagine aliens take your skin cells and put them into a growing-people-from-cells box. Unless you destroy them, they will become people. Can you destroy them? Yes, Warren thinks you can. 2. Infanticide- This theory doesn't give any rights to newborns. 2(a). Warren: You can destroy babies that other people want. 2(a)(1). Response to Warren: But doesn't a newborn have rights? Warren only seems to give newborns indirect moral standing. 2(a)(2). Response to Warren: What if I really, really like killing newborns? Would I be wrong for doing so? 3. Those potential people (a) have their own genetic code and (b) will become new people unless interfered with.

Death penalty: problems with Deontology

1. Can we really endorse this principle of equality? -- How can we do so? If we can accept the idea of "an eye for an eye," what do we do with the one-eyed man? 2. Are there limits to what we can do? -- Even if we accept that evil people deserve to suffer, are there any boundaries on the indignities we can make them experience while still thinking that we are doing something good? 3. Does this justify prison? -- Prison only seems to be justified in the case of kidnapping- yet, we use it for almost every offense. If we think we're right to use prisons in this way, we might have to revise Kant and come up with some other notion o how we can use time as the equivalence of the gravity of the crime.

appeals of Divine Command Theory (DCT)

1. Consistency -- religious values and ethical values are equivalent 2. Theological backing for ethics -- provides divine punishment as a reason for behaving ethically

Natural Law Theory (NLT): purposes of sex

1. Creation of human life, through procreation 2. Provision of a permanent home for children, by binding two people together permanently in marriage. 3. Preservation of this home for children through the emotional binding together of parents

appeals of Utilitarianism

1. Egalitarian model 2. No need for controversial metaphysics ( as pleasures are quantifiable) 3. Respects human choices -- if there is no harm, then there is no prohibition

Mill's argument in favor of the harm principle

1. Fallability -- received wisdom has often been completely wrong (e.g., the killing of Jesus and Socrates); if we are not certain of our own beliefs, then we are not justified in suppressing the beliefs of others. 2. Dead dogma -- unless a belief is regularly challenged, we lose track of why we believe; we should thus welcome heretics, mockers, and infidels because if we use coercion to quite them, we lose a chance to understand ourselves 3. Mixed truth and falsity -- this is the most likely situation, where received truth is neither totally right nor totally wrong; we lose a chance to improve if we stop heresy, as we need disagreement and disputes to make our ideas better. 4. Danger of government action -- even if government could legitimately constrain speech sometimes, it would do so well - or infrequently. 5. Importance of local knowledge -- ee know ourselves better than other people do, so even if we could come up with good rules, they would likely be misapplied by those who don't understand us. 6. Active characters -- choice is a sort of muscle; to grow, we requires options, alternatives, and the space for deliberation.

Abortion: problems with the Pope

1. Genetic code -- How exactly does this work in the case of multiples, for example? Do you have one and a spare? Both have the same genetic code. 2. Continuity -- Consider the paradox of the balding man. We cannot pinpoint the magic moment when the man became bald, as it was a gradual process. But just because he is bald now does not mean that he was always bald. If this is true in terms of baldness, why couldn't it be true in terms of persons? The same could go for fetuses and personhood- their gaining personhood could be a gradual process.

Natural Law Theory (NLT): four basic human goods (or values)

1. Human life 2. Human procreation (which includes raising children) 3. Human knowledge 4. Human sociability (this value has to do with associations and bonds with others, including friendship, social organizations, and political organizations) The four goods are constitutive of eudaimonia.

problems with Kantian ethics

1. If rational agency is the foundation of all ethics, how should non-human animals or the cognitively-impaired be accounted for? 2. Is it possible to live with Kant's non-consequentalism? Example: Remember, one is obligated to tell the truth to the killer at the door, even if it means he will kill -- cannot abuse rational agency, not even his!

Pornography: Kirstol vs. MacKinnon

1. Is pornography speech? 1(a). Kristol: No. Porn is analogous to fighting words, only meant to elicit an immediate physical response; it conveys no meaning. 1(b). MacKinnon: Yes, and that's why it's a problem; it says something problematic and worrisome -- perpetuates subordination of women. 2. What to do with pornography? 2(a). Kristol: Control it -- have it heavily regulated. 2(b). MacKinnon: Outright ban it. Problematic gender roles make inequality look like equality. We are concerned with porn as institutionalized gender roles, where men are seen as dominant and women are seen as subjugated/submissive. 3. What's the harm? 3(a). Kristol: Pornography harms the consumer; we should practice paternalism. It infantilizes them and makes it so that they can't engage in real relationships with other people. It allows them to escape human reality and turns sex into animalistic pleasure. 3(b). MacKinnon: It harms women as a class, not just particular, specific women. Pornography harms attitudes toward women and their class. It takes the inequality of dominance and submission, and normalizes it, then expands it to our society; these ideas are reinforced by pornography. It is a systematic suppression of equality. Pornography constructs gender roles for women (what women are sexually) and promotes violence against women.

problems with exceptions to the harm principle

1. It is tricky to pull apart the notion of information vs. propaganda. What counts as information the government needs to tell you is not at all clear. What is told to you can change your interaction with the world and restrict you more than if you hadn't known. 2. Children are thought to not be fully developed and, in that way, to not really be making choices. However, this same concept is problematic for cognitively disabled adults- do we leave them vulnerable to be taken advantage of or instead treat them like children? Additionally, in other countries, this could justify the idea of savages and imperialism (note: which contradicts the idea of "local knowledge"). Moreover, for rational adults in the case of democracy and politics, it may be the case that we cannot grapple with macroeconomics and climate science, for example. If so, are we not qualified to make a choice because we don't have the necessary cognitive abilities?

Death penalty: why is it special?

1. Its finality -- It cannot be overridden and gives rise to the possibility of a non-fixable mistake. 2. It is a different kind of punishment -- It does not leave an agent there, either as the subject of the punishment or as a potential future member of society; it also works through the body, which no other judicial punishment in the U.S. does.

Pornography: problems with MacKinnon

1. Might the cure be worse than the disease? -- Can government realy have any objective standard of what a "posture of sexual display" is? Does MacKinnon's solution disempower women themselves? 2. Just what is porn, anyway? -- MacKinnon might argue anything that shows women being sexually degraded or passive, or calls itself porn, is pornography. Anyway she turns it, there is a problem. Might there not be a lot of entertainment that has this characteristic (ex. Cosmo magazine)? If this is what she means, she may have to extend her theory to cover more than just the stuff that calls itself porn. And if it is only the stuff that calls itself porn, how do we know that all of this stuff really features women's dehumanization; and isn't it possible that some stuff that is porn isn't dehumanizing (ex. an explicit, non-degrading film)?

appeals of Ethical Relativism

1. Promotes empirical diversity (i.e., the world is diverse in its ethical traditions) 2. Promotes tolerance (i.e., respect, as humanity has a long history of bad actions motivated by a belief that other societies are ethically wrong) 3. Prevents condemnation of what others do not understand 4. Refrains from imperialism 5. Refrains from hypocrisy

problems with Utilitarianism

1. Some things may not be reducible to physical sensation. 2. The idea that pleasures are quantifiable. Everyone may not have the same ability to experience pleasure. 3. Thought experience: Robert Nozick's Experience Box. People may value things being a certain way, intrinsically, rather than simply having the experience of them being that way. Example: People may value being loved rather than just the good feelings that love produces. 4. The notion of distribution. Utilitarianism only cares about maximized pleasure and is not concerned with fairness. It cannot account for rights, where these rights warrant against being used for the purposes of others.

Distinctions between Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics (Bentham vs. Kant)

1. Source of moral salience: sentience (ability to feel pleasure and pain) vs. agency (ability to choose to act) 2. Moral conclusions are: empirical and contingent (measurable and dependent on the context) vs. non-empirical and non-contingent or necessary (rational) 3. An act is good based on its: consequences vs. respect for agents, regardless of the consequences

problems with Mill

1. Speech and causation -- Mill has now admitted that speech can have causal effects rather than just simply being intellectual content, but it's not clear how large this exception can grow to be. 2. Is truth a good thing? -- Mill emphasizes moving toward the truth and thinks this is all we need, but truth can lead to the destruction of illusions and, as Edmund Burke points out re: politics, we need illusions, loyalties, and traditions - and not freedom to find out the truth! 3. How open to heretics do we have to be? -- Mill is aware that social marginalization can be an effective way of silencing someone - do we have to be friends with people we hate, then? 4. Will truth always win? -- Mill has faith that it will, but what evidence do we have that it will always defeat falsity? What about persistent and evil ideas (ex. baby-eating book about Jews, written by anti-Semites, that is being sold in Palestine and believed). 5. Just what counts as harm? -- In particular, do mental harms count? Mill gives inconsistent arguments here: 1) We have the right to eat pork in public, even if Muslims think it's gross, and 2) We do not have the right to engage in public indecency (e.g., having sex in the streets). 6. Can mere words destroy lives? -- Mill assumes that speech is "just there" and that the better argument will win, but what about cases in which speech can alter the form of life experienced by members of a society?

problems with Divine Command Theory (DCT)

1. There is more than one religion in the world 2. There is more than one interpretation of each religion 3. What reasons does God have for what he approves of? (see the Euthyphro Dilemma) 4. People can be motivated by ethics without a concept of God. Oftentimes, people treat people based on what they think they deserve rather than out of a fear of punishment.

Mill's responses to objections to the harm principle

1. Those with special responsibilities may have special obligations, but the rest of us can do what we want. We punish actions that cause direct harm, and any more expansive notion leads to unacceptable consequences. (For example, if a man drinks and hits someone, we punish the assault - not the drinking! Punishment of those drinkers who don't assault people is unacceptable.) 2. The government already has enormous power over us through education, regulations, and legal prohibitions. Isn't that enough? More importantly, treating people like kids causes them to act like kids - people need to grow up! 3. If an action we propose to do is really bad, then eventually, we'll become an example of what not to do. Some of us can serve as warnings!

types of ethical theories

1. Utilitarianism (concerns pain, maximum pleasure) 2. Kantian ethics (concerns fairness, respect for human agency) 3. Natural law theory (concerns certain goods that humans naturally pursue)

Abortion: problems with Thompson and her responses

1. Voluntarism -- The woman invited the fetus in through her actions. 1(a). Thompson: Seed-person hypothetical. Seeds are known for coming into peoples' houses, implanting in their carpets, and growing into people. Someone carefully shields their house, but the seeds still get in. Thompson thinks that the person has a right to throw the carpet out, and if the seed-person dies, oh well. The mere fact that you did something voluntarily does not mean you then have an obligation; you can cause something to happen without having an obligation.

Pornography: problems with/responses to Kristol

1. What evidence is there to suggest that sexual immorality equals difficulty in being a democratic participant? 2. Isn't there something a bit odd re: the solution to censor it, but still have it available? This seems to make it available for those who know where to look for it... easily found, but somehow marginal. Is this a good idea? 3. Is Kristol guilty of assuming one particular view re: what counts as "healthy sexuality"? A liberal response: Can't we have different attitudes, with different people, at different times?

problems with Ethical Relativism

1. While there may be some disagreement regarding some values, there may be less disagreement than is presumed; different practices mask an inner unity. Example: Both eating the dead and cremating the dead are done so as to honor and respect the dead. 2. It is possible to accept context-sensitivity without being an ethical relativist. A context-sensitivity does not assume an absolutionist position. Example: We might have a cross-cultural duty to avoid rudeness, such as not using the middle finger in the U.S. and the index finger in another country. 3. Ethical relativism does not really support tolerance well. Example: Imagine a society where those who dissent are killed on sight. According to this theory, killers are right to kill their victims. However, these acts would be intolerable, which would assume some ethical truth. 4. Ethical relativism makes it difficult to criticize a society from the inside. 5. Ethical relativism makes it difficult to gauge moral progress. Example: Compare racial attitudes in the U.S. from the 1800s and the 2000s. Relativism makes it hard for society to pronounce that the latter set of attitudes as better. Instead, it requires for society to just remark that the two are simply different. 6. It confuses the descriptive with the normative (what should or ought to be). 7. Possibility of an eventual reduction into personal relativism (culture of what? -- culture of one).

Euthyphro Dilemma

A dilemma for Divine Command Theory (DCT): Is an action a good thing because God loves it, or does God love it because it is a good thing? It the first clause is answered affirmatively, then it would seem God is capricious or random. Additionally, taking this viewpoint does not allow for a discussion of ethics or the possibility of conversation with a non-believer because if there is no belief in God, then there is no common ground (no agreed upon premise). If the second clause is answered in the affirmative, then it would seem as if there is an independent moral order which God is constrained by and could be examined directly. William of Ockham believed God could indeed make murder mandatory. St. Thomas Aquinas believed God has a reason for what he says, and this reason constrains him.

fallacy of small sample size

A fallacious form of inductive argument in which conclusions are offered that are stronger than what can be inferred from the number of observations. Example: "I don't like jazz, and you don't like jazz; clearly, no one likes jazz."

fallacy of exclusion

A fallacy of inductive reasoning, in which evidence that might cast doubt on the conclusion is excluded from consideration; an instance where relevant information is excluded from consideration. Example: "The Seattle Mariners have won their last two games. They're clearly a great team! (Note for non-fans of baseball: the Mariners are not a good team, and have probably lost several games before the winning streak in question.)"

fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc

A faulty, fallacious form of inductive argument in which the arguer insists that an event that follows another must therefore be caused by that prior event; the assumption that temporal succession implies a causal relation [Princeton]. Literally means "after this, therefore because of this." Example: "I aced the test the day after I found a penny; the penny is clearly giving me good luck!" or "A man wore his favorite hat while watching a baseball game. The Mariners won the game. The man's hat is lucky because it allowed the Mariners to win the game."

argument

A pattern of reasoning in which premises are offered as reasons to believe in the truth of conclusions. Arguments consist of premise(s) and a conclusion. Two types of arguments include deductive and inductive arguments.

Categorical Imperative

A philosophical concept designed as a way to evaluate motivations for actions [Wikipedia]. The two types of categorical imperatives include: (1) the universal law formulation, and (2) the humanity formulation.

conclusion

A proposition whose truth is not assumed, but is to be established by the argument. A proposition which the premises of an argument are supposed to provide reason to believe.

premise

A proposition whose truth is taken for granted in an argument, rather than argued for itself.

Utilitarianism

A specific form of consequentialism in which right or wrong relates to how much happiness or sadness an action brings to the world. In Bentham's Utilitarianism, the only ethical good is pleasure and the only ethical bad is pain. The right thing to do is the action that maximizes the net amount of pleasure in the world. Features of Bentham's Utilitarianism include: (1) pleasure as a sensation, with all things being reducible to sensory experience or physical sensation, (2) pleasures being homogeneous with respect to value (no difference in quality of pleasures, but only in quantity), and (3) pleasures as givens (i.e., pleasure is something that can't be taught, but which is an innate feature found in every person). Properties to be taken into account of the value of pleasure or pain are: (1) its intensity, (2) its duration, (3) its certainty or uncertainty, and (4) its propinquity (nearness) or remoteness. Properties of the pain or pleasure itself include: (5) its fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and (6) its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. To a number of persons, all of the above should be considered in addition to (7) its extent, that is, the number of persons to whom it extends.

disjunctive syllogism (DS)

A specific form of deductive argument, taking the following form: A or B [Either Socrates has a pulse, or he is dead.] Not B [Socrates does not have a pulse.] Therefore, A [Therefore, Socrates is dead.]

modus ponens (MP)

A specific form of deductive argument, taking the following form: If A then B [If this is a Prius, then this is a car.] A [This is a Prius.] Therefore, B [Therefore, this is a car.]

modus tollens (MT)

A specific form of deductive argument, taking the following form: If A then B [If this is a Prius, then this is a car.] Not B [This is not a car.] Therefore, not A [Therefore, this is not a Prius.]

Ethical Relativism

A theory in which an act is right if and only if (and because) society approves.

Divine Command Theory (DCT)

A theory in which an act is right iff (and because) God approves; an action is right iff (and because) God does not command that we not do that action.

Mill's reformation of Utilitarianism

Actions and social policy are judged with reference to the "permanent interests of man as a progressive being." 1. Pleasure isn't always a sensation. Some of the highest goods ("utility," "pleasure") aren't physically pleasurable, but are good because of their value. 2. Pleasures are not homogenous, but admit of different quality. Higher pleasures are different in kind from lower pleasures. Building a life from the inside is the highest-quality pleasure of all. 3. Pleasures are not given but can, and should, be altered by society. We have an obligation to give more of the higher-quality pleasures to those who are currently excluded from them - in particular, women.

Abortion: Pope

Against abortion: 1. The preservation of human life is itself an intrinsic good. 2. The fetus is a human life; it is a person and bears rights like any person. 3. Fetuses are persons because of a) their genetic code; and b) continuity. 3(a). Genetic code argument: At conception, a code is created which already has within it traits and characteristics of the complete life. A fetus is a new and unique thing brought about by conception. 3(b). Continuity argument: It would never be a human if it were not already. There is no good way of drawing the line of where personhood commences. But there must be a time when the person comes into existence, and conception is the only reasonable choice because of genetic code. There is no "magic moment" other than at creation. This argument focuses on the truth of the central argument (see central argument).

Death penalty: Bedau

Against the death penalty: 1. Does the death penalty deter? -- States without the death penalty have the same murder rates as states with the death penalty. It would only be a deterrent if it was applied fairly (which it isn't). 2. Does its finality- and possibility of error- make it wrong? -- Bedau does not explicitly address this question here, but is there not a different between an intended killing and an accident? 3. Can we accept it as a symbolic act- given the ways in which it differs from other forms of punishment? -- It sends the message that killing is not always wrong. It tells us that killing is sometimes a good thing and glorifies in the destruction of the body. It may, in a subtle way, make society more brutal. 4. Is it justified as a form of retribution? -- All crimes differ in nature, yet all are punished by incarceration. Retribution would only work if all murderers were executed - and only a tiny percentage are! Murders should get death with death and not be subjected to a "death lottery;" the system needs to be changed. (Van den Haag, in response: "Let's speed up the death penalty so more people are executed, then!") (Bedau, in response: "We can't do this while maintaining the procedural safeguards that we have. Additionally, public support for the death penalty drops sharply as the number increases.")

Categorical Imperative: Humanity formulation

An act is right iff (and because) the action treats persons (including oneself) as ends in themselves and not as mere means (things capable of making their own decisions). The Humanity formulation requires not only that one not treat others as mere means to one's own ends (a negative requirement), but also that one treats them as ends in themselves (a positive requirements). One cannot use one's own agency to undermine another person's agency, as the idea is that a person is one creature among many with dignity and the ability to choose.

Categorical Imperative: Universal Law formulation

An act is right iff one can both (a) consistently conceive of everyone adopting and acting on the general principal (that, is the maxim) of one's action, and also (b) consistently will that everyone act on that maxim; act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. One cannot treat oneself as an exception to the rule; one cannot treat others as less and oneself as more.

Natural Law Theory (NLT)

An action is right iff (and because) in performing the action one does not directly violate any of the basic values (see NLT: four basic human goods).

Natural Law Theory (NLT): Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

An action that would bring about at least one evil effect and at least one good effect is morally permissible iff the following conditions are satisfied: 1. Intrinsic permissibility: The action in question, apart from its effects, is morally permissible. 2. Necessity: Is it not possible to bring about the good effect except by performing an action that will bring about the evil effect in question. 3. Nonintentionality: The evil effect is not intended -- it is neither one's end nor a chosen means for bringing about some intended end. 4. Proportionality: The evil that will be brought about by the action is nout out of proportion to the good being aimed at. The doctrine of double effect concerns cases in which performing an action would have at least one good effect and one bad effect (where good and bad have to do with the theory's list of intrinsic goods). This doctrine is meant to address the question of whether it is ever morally permissible to knowingly bring about bad or evil consequences where one's aim in action is to bring about or preserve one or more of the basic human goods. Things can be accepted as side consequences that might not be accepted if they are the purposes of the action.

fallacy of complex question

An argumentative fallacy in which the argumentative structure forces the audience to accept a proposition despite whichever response is offered; a question that contains a controversial assumption made by the wording of the question, such as a presumption of guilt [Wikipedia]. This type of question hides the fact that the options aren't exclusive (i.e., the only ones available). Example: "Mr. Jones, have you stopped abusing drugs?" or "I'd like to think that you've stopped beating your children; can you tell me that you've made that change?" No matter how the questions are answered, the respondents are forced to admit some degree of guilt.

fallacy of argumentum ad hominem

An argumentative fallacy in which the critique is directed not at the argument, but the one making the argument. Example: "We have no reason to believe the Governor's economic plan will work; he has been divorced twice, so how can he be any good at planning?" or "Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, you shouldn't be a vegetarian!" (see argumentum ad Hitlerum, an ad hominem argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party [Wikipedia])

fallacy of begging the question

An argumentative fallacy in which what is to be concluded is illegitimately assumed (implicitly or explicitly) as a premise (i.e., circular logic). Example: "Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong." Most people assume murder is wrong, so calling abortion murder assumes the act is wrong, thereby asserting the conclusion in the premise.

fallacy of denying the antecedent

An argumentative fallacy, taking the following form: A then B [If Socrates is an American citizen, then Socrates is a human.] Not A [Socrates is not American.] Therefore, not B [Therefore, Socrates is not a human being.] Note, however, that Socrates does not have to be American in order to be a human being.

fallacy of affirming the consequent

An argumentative fallacy, taking the following form: If A then B [If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal.] B [Socrates is mortal.] Therefore, A [Therefore, Socrates is a man.] Note, however, that Socrates can be mortal and not be a man -- he could be a lizard.

fallacy of false dilemma

An argumentative form in which the arguer insists that one of two propositions must be true, when in fact both might be false; an argument in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more [Wikipedia] (hidden premises). Example: "Either you support the Governor's plan or you are a Godless communist. You aren't a Godless communist. Therefore, you support the Governor's plan."

fallacy of equivocation

An argumentative form in which the arguer uses words to mean different things at different points in the argument. Example: "The sign said 'fine for parking here,' so I knew it would be fine to park there," or "The Dean hates foreigners. The inhabitants of the counterweight continent hate foreigners. Therefore, the Dean and the inhabitants of the counterweight continent hate the same people."

inductive argument

An argumentative form in which the truth of the premises is intended to give probabilistic support for the truth of the conclusions. An inductive argument is possibly defeasible (i.e., capable of being invalidated), as it gives reason to think a conclusion is true, but not absolute proof. Oftentimes, inductive arguments rely on experience of the world and "facts." Example: "This bird is a swan. Every swan I've ever seen has been white. This bird is probably white."

deductive argument

An argumentative form in which the truth of the premises is intended to lead necessarily to the truth of the conclusions; if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. A deductive argument has a notion of certainty. Example: "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

fallacy

An incorrect argumentation resulting in a misconception or presumption [Wikipedia]; a bad argument.

Abortion: Warren

For abortion: Warren contends that there is an equivocation in the central argument that is between: a) human being as what is genetically related to a human being; and b) human being as being a person with moral standing. The argument therefore looks like: 1) A fetus is a human being (genetically), 2) It is wrong to kill a human being (personhood), and 3) It is wrong to kill a fetus. But genetic humanity is neither necessary for personhood (ex. intelligent aliens, sentient robots), nor is it sufficient for personhood (ex. someone who has no higher brain functions). So, if we change the two premises to be just about persons, we must define what a person is. What does it mean to be a person? 1) consciousness, 2) reasoning, 3) self-motivated activity, 4) capacity to communicate, and 5) awareness of self. This is a range conception, meaning that more of these equals more person-like. This also means that abortion is not the killing of a person.

indirect moral standing

Having moral status in virtue of the interests and rights of another creature with direct moral standing. Something with indirect moral standing has instrumental moral value- it only has value with respect to something else. For example, artworks do not have rights, but they have indirect moral standing in virtue of our caring about them.

direct moral standing

Having the ability to have moral claims made directly on one's behalf, in virtue of one's own interests. Something with direct moral standing has intrinsic value or has moral value of it's own. Persons are generally a paradigm case of having direct moral standing.

conservative sexual ethic (also called moralism)

Idea that there are sexual choices that you should make, regardless of whether or not you feel like doing so. Examples include: 1) some forms of bestiality, 2) eating the (consenting) dead, and 3) consensual cannibalism. Conservatism isn't just one sort of argument, but many -- what links them is some space for moralism as a ground for prohibition.

Death penalty: van den Haag

In favor of the death penalty: 1. Does the death penalty deter? -- Some crimes cannot be deterred by other means, and each additional executions seems to prevent 7-8 homicides. 2. Does its finality- and possibility of error- make it wrong? -- Every activity we engage in has the risk of killing innocent people. The death penalty is needed for justice. We should try to make it better, but should not eliminate the practice. 3. Can we accept it as a symbolic act- given the ways in which it differs from other forms of punishment? -- We should avoid making death entertainment, yes. But killing a killer respects human life- it would disrespect it to allow that person to live. 4. Is it justified as a form of retribution? -- It cheapens life to punish the murderer by incarceration? Only death can license or legitimately punish killing (death).

harm principle

In the absence of some direct harm to a non-consenting other person, we have no permission to engage in coercive actions designed to prevent an action; we must allow people to do anything they want or can do short of directly harm non-consenting others. For Mill (but not for the state), this excludes: (1) harm to self (e.g., self-prescribing medications), (2) offense to others (e.g., picketing at funerals), and (3) harmless wrongdoing (e.g., violation of society norms).

Homosexuality: Corvino

Included in moral objections to homosexuality is that it is "unnatural" and that it is harmful either to those who engage in it or to others. Corvino considers a number of versions of both types of arguments and concludes that none of them are defensible. 1. Homosexuality is "unnatural" -- What does that mean? Corvino examines several possible meanings of "unnatural." 1(a). What is unusual or abnormal is unnatural -- Obviously, most people engage in heterosexual relationships. But does it follow that it is wrong to engage in homosexual relationships? Other activities are not deemed immoral simply because they are unusual (e.g., reading Sanskrit, playing the mandolin, etc.). 1(b). What is not practiced by other animals is unnatural -- This argument is doubly flawed. Numerous studies have shown that some animals do form homosexual pair-bonds. Second, even if animals did not behave homosexually, that fact would not prove that homosexuality is immoral (for example, animals do not cook their food, but cooking is not immoral). 1(c). What does not proceed from innate desires is unnatural -- One side proposes that homosexual people are "born that way" and that is therefore natural (and thus good) for them to form homosexual relationships. The other side maintains that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, which is therefore unnatural (and thus wrong). The first assumption is clear false: research suggests that some people are born with a predisposition toward violence, but they still do not have a right to commit violence. Nor does it follow that they ought not to act on their desires, even if the tendencies are not innate. For example, a person may not be innately left-handed, but it is not then immoral for him or her to write with his or her left hand. 1(d). [The most powerful argument:] What violates an organ's principal purpose is unnatural -- Homosexual sex cannot result in procreation, yes. But according to this argument, it is immoral to use an organ in a way that violates its particular purpose. A person can use his mouth for breathing, eating, licking, talking, kissing women, and kissing men- but it seems arbitrary to claim that the all but the last of these are "natural." There are multiple legitimate purposes for the sexual organs, including love, mutual respect, etc. We are inconsistent if we condemn non-reproductive sexuality only for homosexual conduct. The Catholic Church has no opposition to sexual acts by sterile, pregnant, or post-menopausal people. Why not? 1(e). What is disgusting or offensive is unnatural -- Plenty of morally neutral activities disgust people. Those feelings hardly prove that such relationships are wrong. 2. Homosexuality is harmful -- There is nothing inherently risky about sex between persons of the same gender. It is only risky under certain conditions: for instance, if they exchange diseased bodily fluids or if they engage in certain "rough" forms of sex that could cause tearing of delicate tissue. Heterosexual sex is equally risky under such conditions. Additionally, homosexuality does not threaten society. Yes, the continuation of society does require procreation, but it does not follow from that that everyone must procreate. Moreover, even if such an obligation existed, it would not preclude homosexuality, but exclusive homosexuality.

Pornography: Kristol

Kristol thinks that people can be deformed and made into worse people and that, as such, the government has a responsibility to stop people from being stupid and deforming themselves. For example, if books can make people better, then surely they can make them worse; if education can make people better, then surely there must be other things that can make people worse. Entertainment can be bad if it revels in the bodily at the expense of the dignity (humanity) of the person -- pornography does this to sex: it shows the animal function and does not show the humanity of the people involved, as well as reduces people to their most physical senses, stripped of the dignity accorded persons. Pornography is obscene material because it doesn't say anything, and that's why it's wrong! It should be censored and left legal and available, but made difficult to find.

liberal sexual ethic

Mill: What matters is that you choose your sexual choices, so long as no non-consenting person is harmed. This rules out sexual coercion, but other things such as homosexuality and masturbation would not be.

Natural Law Theory (NLT): Aquinas

Objects have purposes, something they are for (e.g., the good knife cuts well -- and we think the knife that doesn't cut as having failed its purpose of being a knife). There is teology in nature (e.g., the heart is meant to pump blood, and good hearts pump well). There is teology for persons, as well- things that people are designed to be and to pursue. Morality relates to these purposes. The good human life consists of certain goods, and a life that does not pursue these goods is not a good life -- and makes for a bad person. These four human goods include: 1) human life, 2) human procreation, 3) human knowledge, and 4) human sociability. The purposes of sex include: creation of human life through procreation, provision of a permanent home for children (by binding two people together permanently in marriage), and preservation of this home through the emotional binding together of parents. This theory then condemns premarital sexual relations (as it uses the sexual function outside the context of a permanent home for children), masturbation (an "intrinsically and seriously disordered act"), and homosexuality (as it also uses sexual function outside of the supposed context).

Abortion: personhood

Personhood bears direct moral standing, instead of indirect moral standing. This is where the Vatican and Mary Anne Warren differ, as the Vatican believes that fetuses have direct moral standing; Mary Anne Warren does not and thinks that they may have indirect moral standing. If a fetus is proven to be a person, then we must commit to the idea that it has moral value (direct moral worth).

Pornography: MacKinnon

Pornography is obscene material because it says something, and that is what's wrong with it! It encourages subordination of women and inequalities of power. Pornography hides its harm by shaping both male and female identities, and these identities are accepted because it's too difficult to fight against them. Pornography is a harm because it tells both men and women that women like to violated, are there for the use of men, and so on. Consent to this does not matter, as consent given under conditions of inequality is not valid.

philosophy

The activity of examining commonly accepted matters; reasoning and understanding how people make sense of the world. The making and evaluating of arguments. It is the abstract studying of ideas and understandings.

Homosexuality: Vatican

The basis of the church's teachings is the natural law approach to ethics, according to which there are objective standards of human behavior that are grounded in facts about human nature and are thus "perennial" -- principles that can be known either through revelation or through the use of reason. The fundamental principles of sexual morality concern, then, the nature of the human being and the proper function of sexual behavior, which includes "mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love." This principle is then used as a basis for arguing that premarital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation are morally wrong. It is unnatural, in the sense that it does not use the sexual capacities of the body in the way appropriate to the flourishing of the person. It is not necessary to show that it is harmful; instead, it is enough to show that it is not what sex should be.

Death penalty: Deontology (Kantian ethics)

The deontological view of punishment concerns moral agency. We need freedom to develop our own will, but freedom in society requires certain rules. Those who break the law have taken advantage for themselves that which is denied to others. Their debt must be expiated before the offiender is returned to a position of equality to the rest of society. Crime makes one "unfit to be a citizen" and punishment repays the debt. The concept of lex talionis dictates the idea of the death penalty- it is the only just punishment for murder.

Act-utilitarianism

The idea that an action is right to the extent that it maximizes utility (e.g., Bentham's Utilitarianism).

Rule-utilitarianism

The idea that rules and policies are right to the extent that they maximize utility. Rules should be made so as to maximize utility.

eudaimonia

The objective state of human good or flourishing. In order to be understood as flourishing, human capacities must be used in accordance with the natural purposes assigned them. The four basic human goods are constitutive of eudaimonia.

exceptions to the harm principle

The only way to find an exception is to say that the choice isn't really a choice, or that it isn't really self-regarding. 1. Inadequate/incomplete information -- we can intervene when the choice doesn't reflect adequate information, as in the case of a man crossing a bridge we know to be unsafe; there is a fine line, however, between provision of information and trying to make people choose the things you want them to do (advocacy). 2. Inadequate cognitive abilities -- another factor in agency, where a person must have enough intelligence and experience to make decisions for himself or herself; there is a fine line between acknowledging cognitive defects and disrespecting human choices and desires, however! 3. Harmful speech -- Example: Mill will allow us to say that corn dealers are murderers of the poor, as that is a contribution to an exchange of ideas. Mill will not, however, allow us to say this when we are at the steps of a corn dealer's house and the speech will directly lead to his killing. Some words lead to direct harm.

validity

The property (read: structure) of a deductive argument by which it is impossible that the premises may be true and the conclusion false. Notions of validity do not apply to inductive arguments, as the principle of validity only works when the premises of an argument are truth-preserving.

soundness

The property (read: truth or falsity) of a deductive argument by which both (1) the argument is valid and (2) the premises are true.

Kantian ethics

Theory that human beings are special because they can (1) choose what they will do (i.e., agency), and (2) make rules for themselves (i.e., maxims). Human beings are autonomous (i.e., capable of giving law to oneself). These facts mean that humans have a distinct moral value (i.e., dignity) -- all other things in the world can be used as tools and valued as such, but humans are valued differently. Human beings need to be respected as ends in themselves, which means respecting their ability to act as rational agents. The formulation of the Categorical Imperative is the criterion for whether a maxim is good or bad.

ethical theories

These theories explain the moral intuitions we already have and extend these intuitions into areas in which society is less sure of, so as to give ethical guidance. They explain (unify) and extend (guide) moral beliefs or intuitions and provide a framework or structure that allows for reasoning.

Abortion: Thompson

Thompson grants that a fetus is a person such that it has rights, but does not think that it's always wrong to kill persons. For Thompson, it's important to distinguish between these two claims: a) the fetus doesn't have a right to life (she does not address this either way), and b) the woman has a right to withdraw support to the fetus. Even if we accept that the fetus is a person, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a right to not be killed- what is has is a right not to be killed unjustly! This theory cares not only about duties, but also about attitudes. People who choose abortion selfishly are callous but do not violate anyone's rights. In law, there is no duty to be a good Samaritan, but the law fails in regard to women in the same respect. Violinist hypothetical: One morning, you wake up attached to a famous violinist who needs your body for 9 months. If you leave his side, you will die. Must you stay? Thompson thinks that it would be very nice if you did stay, but that you have no duty to stay: one's body is one's own, and no one has an obligation to do things for other people, even to save their lives. The intention is not to kill, but live one's own life. Under some circumstances, this may be thought of as callous.

components of a "good" deductive argument

Validity and soundness. Validity is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good argument. Soundness, however, is both necessary and sufficient for a good argument.

Punishment: Utilitarianism

We punish because it makes the world less painful to have some pain in it for wrongness. Utilitarians try to use punishment to maximize happiness by punishing those actions that would otherwise lead to pain and by punishing only to that degree needed to maximize human happiness.