PHL205 Week2 CH3&4
Where does moral theory fit in moral deliberations?
Theory plays a role along with judgements and principles or rules. To determine the morally right thing, we may find ourselves reflecting on one/ all of these elements at once. The goal in the give and take of theory and judgement (or principle) is a kind of coherence between the two- what has come to be known as reflective equilibrium. 1. Insights embodied in a theory 2. Justification to relevant principles 3. Find inconsistencies and depending on the weight we give too the particular judgement, we may decide to adjust the principles or the theory so that it is compatible with the judgement.
What do supporting statements assert?
They assert something about scientific evidence, expert opinion, relevant examples, or other considerations. They provides reasons a statement is true, that what is asserted is actual.
What is the counter example method?
This approach is based on a fundamental fact that you already know: it is impossible for a valid argument to have true premises and a false conclusion. You first invent a twin argument that has exactly the same form as the argument you are examining- but you try to give this new argument true premises and a false conclusion. If you can construct such an argument, you have proven the original argument is invalid: If capital punishment's deters crime, then the number of death row inmates will decrease over time. But capital punishment does not deter crime Therefore, the number of death row inmates will not decrease over time. It is an example of denying the antecedent If p, then q Not p Therefore, not q if Lizards are mammals, then they have legs but they are not mammals Therefore, they do not have legs True premises but a false conclusion^^
What is confirmation bias?
To pay attention only to evidence that confirms our beliefs while ignoring opposing evidence is to fall prey to the cognitive distortion that this it. Research shows humans cherry-pick evidence to support their existing beliefs and do not bother to check for disconfirming evidence. It can make beliefs seem reasonable it can lead to ideas and theories that are non-falsifiable- for which no contradictory evidence would be allowed to call a belief into question. To escape confirmation bias we must make an effort to look for both disconfirming and confirming evidence.
What does it mean to have an overarching view of morality?
To reject all moral theories, to deny the possibility of objective morality, or to embrace a subjective view of morality, a view that in the broadest sense constitutes a moral theory or part of one
What is the easiest way of identifying implied premises in a moral argument?
To treat the moral argument as a deductive. It helps you not only to find implied premises but also to assess the worth of all premises.
What does it mean to theorize?
To wonder what makes an action right/ wrong
What does it mean to live by the lights of a moral theory?
Top rely on your default theory- the one you inherited from your family or culture instead of thinking about morality
What to do if there is an implied premise?
Try to explicitly state any implied premise (or premises) when (1) there seems to be a logical gap between premises or between premises and the conclusion and (2) the missing material is not commonsense assumption. It should makes the argument valid (when its a deductive argument) or strong (in a inductive argument) It should be plausible and fitting (coinciding with the authors intent)
One technique to check the validity of deductive arguments? Conditional argument- affirming the antecedent-
Understand that you can easily indicate an argument's form by using a kind of standard shorthand, with letters standing for statements. : "If Maria walks to work, then she will be late. (conditional) She is walking to work (Affirms the antecedent of the conditional) Therefore, she will be late": If p, then q p. Therefore q
What is the contrast between utilitarianism and Kant's theory?
Utilitarianism depends on the consequences that produces for everyone involved, and for Kant the action is right if and only if it possesses a particular property- the property of according to the categorical imperative, of not having a logical contradiction.
What is happens as a result of making or critiquing moral arguments?
We are to to be deliberate about the rightness of our actions, make careful moral judgments about the character or behavior of others, or strive to resolve complex ethical issues They are vehicles that move ethical thinking and discourse along.
Why is a nonmoral premise also necessary in a moral argument?
We cannot infer a statement (conclusion) about a particular kind of action from a moral statement (premise) about a broad category of actions- unless we have a nonmoral premise to link the two. The role of a nonmoral premise is to affirm that the general moral principal does indeed apply to the particular case.
What are consequentialist theories (teleological)?
What makes an action right is its consequences. The rights of a principle depend on the amount of good it produces. It is the action that results in the most favorable balance of good over bad. good can be: Pleasure, happiness, well-being, flourishing, or knowledge
What are implied premises?
When some premises are implied instead of stated. Sometimes, they are too obvious to mention; readers mentally fill in the blanks. But in most cases, implicit premises should not be left unstated. It is often unclear what premises have been assumed, and unless these are spelled out, argument evaluation becomes difficult or impossible. Unstated premises are often the most dubious parts of an argument. This is common in moral arguments, in which the implicit premises are frequently the most controversial and the most need of close scrutiny.
Why must we have at least one premise that is a moral statement?
Without a moral premise, the argument would not get off the ground. We cannot infer a moral statement (conclusion) from a nonmoral statement (premise). We cannot reason that a moral statement must be true because nonmoral affairs are actual. We cannot establish what ought to be or should be solely on the basis of what is. The conclusion no longer follows. It says something about the rightness of an action, but the premise asserts nothing about the rightness- it just characterizes the nonmoral aspects of an action. It could be permissible or could not be, but it doesn't say.
What is a nonmoral premise?
a claim about a nonmoral state of affairs and sometimes a sticking point in a moral argument. Disputes on nonmoral facts usually concern the consequences of an action or the characteristics of the parties involved.
Should we conclude that a moral theory is the final authority in moral reasoning?
no. A moral theory is like a mathematical axiom. From a moral theory, we cannot derive in strict logical fashion principles or judgments that will solve all the problems of our real-world cases, because they are general and theoretical, they themselves cannot give the right answers and rely on the particular cases and judgeents.
What are Prima facie principles?
principles that apply in a situation unless an exception is justified when two principles conflict and one is considered weightier than the other.
What is it meant to say an argument is cogent?
A strong argument with true premises
What does philosopher W K Clifford say about reasoning itself being a moral issue?
Believing a claim without good reasons (an unsupported statement) is immoral. It is one long sin against mankind to push away doubts and regard questions against a taught or persuaded insufficient belief. The power of reason is given by God to live a good life. So, would believing without evidence be immoral?
What arguments are always invalid?
Denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent
Why is lying immoral according to natural law theory?
It goes against human nature. Truth telling is natural for human because they are social creatures with an inborn tendency to care about the welfare of others. Truth telling helps humans get along, maintain viable societies, and show respect for others. Lying is therefore unnatural and wrong.
What is the true matter between validity and invalidity?
It is a mater of form, not its content.
What are indicator words for inductive arguments?
Probably, likely, in all probability, it is reasonable to suppose that, odds are, and chances are.
In all cases how to check with arguments?
The key to correctly and efficiently determining the validity or strength of arguments takes practice.
What is a conclusion?
The statement supported in an argument
What is the fallacy the appeal to emotion?
The use of emptions alone as substitutes for premises is a fallacy. This occurs when we try to convince someone of a conclusion not by providing them with relevant reasons but by appealing only to fear, guilt, anger, hate, compassion, and the like.
What does an nonargumentive prose have?
They have assertions of fact and/ or an expression of indignation. A bundle of unsupported claims- however clearly stated- does not make an argument
What are examples of not statements?
"Why is Anna laughing" "is abortion immoral" "Hand me the screwdriver" "Don't speak to me" "hello, Webster" "For heaven's sake" These do not assert that something is or is not the case.
What essential elements, without which no progress could be made in resolving the issue at hand, do good moral essays or conversations have?
1. A claim to be proved: It should be spelled out, the reason the claim is worth discussing (how it affects lives, or how differently the world would be if we based judgements on consequences, or that we want to disagree with another's response) 2. An argument for or against a claim. Introduction states the moral claim, and the presentation of a moral argument and the ensuing discussion about the quality of the argument (whether the premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows from them. Explaining and amplifying each premise and supporting it with evidence and to clearly demonstrate that the conclusion follows from the premises and that the premises are true. 3. Consideration of alternative views: Thorough and honest assessment of the objections to your argument and to the conclusions. It shows that you are reliable by being aware of the objections, being fair minded and careful, and you have good responses to them. Always avoid fallacies, especially the straw man , because you miss opportunities to spot possible weaknesses and strengthen them.
What is an example of a contradictory claim involving "natural" as a criteria for rightness?
1. Actions are right if and only if they are natural 2. It is morally right to use unnatural means to save a life This is contradictory!: Claims in which something is and something is not the case, simultaneously. Claim one: X Claim two: X is not
What is the scientific criteria of adequacy?
1. Conservatism: how well it fits with what scientists already know, for a theory that conflicts with existing knowledge is likely to not be true. 2. Fruitfulness: How many successful novel predictions the theory makes: the more predictions, the more plausible the theory is. This is relevant to the moral criteria of adequacy because we apply it the same way.
What are the criterions of the Moral Criteria of Adequacy?
1. Consistency with considered judgements 2. Consistency with our moral experiences 3. Usefulness in moral problem solving
Try to work out a moral theory of obligation- an explanation of what makes an action right or wrong?
1. Decides that the rules cannot be absolute, but there must be more than one basic moral rule that defines our duties in a multiple rule, non-absolutist fashion to avoid contradictions 2. Must be based on more than one principle, the principles should be prima facie (nonabsolute) and irreducible (they cannot serve one another 3. 3 Prima facie principles: respect, justice, and beneficence.
In your search for good reasons to back up nonmoral premises, what is crucial to remember?
1. Use reliable, accurate sources- do not use advocacy groups but experts in their fields. 2. Beware when evidence conflicts, evaluate them both and weigh the evidence for the best one. 3. Let reason rule: Not cherished views, do not reject evidence that conflicts with what we want to believe, looking for only evidence that confirms our prejudices
The structure of moral arguments?
1. premises being a combination of moral and nonmoral 2. a conclusion being a moral statement or judgment 3. At least one premise must be a moral statement affirming a moral principle or rule (a general moral standard, and at least one premise must be a nonmoral statement about a state of affairs, usually a specific type of action. 4. beyond that, there may be many premises or few, premises may be implicit or overt, and extraneous material may be present or absent.
What is the minimum requirement of coherence?
A coherent theory, one that will next be eligible to be evaluated using the criteria of adequacy, is internally consistent, which means that its central claims are consistent with one another- they are not contradictory.
What is a valid argument?
A deductive argument that does in fact provides logically conclusive support for its conclusion. if the premises are true then the conclusion absolutely has to be true. The conclusion follows inexorably from the premises. Saying an argument valid means that it has a particular form that ensures that if the premises are true, the conclusion can be nothing but true.
What is an invalid argument?
A deductive argument that does not offer logically conclusive support for the conclusion. It is not the case that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
What is Modus Tollens (denying the consequent)?
A frequently occurring form. Example: If Maria walks to work, then she will be late She will not be late Therefore, she will not walk to work If p, then q Not q Therefore, not p Is always valid, no matter what statements you plug into the formula.
What is the difference between a good and bad argument?
A good argument shows that its conclusions are worthy of believing or accepting, a bad argument fails to show this. A good argument gives you good reasons to accept a claim; a bad argument proves nothing. Good arguments must be valid or strong, and have true premises and reliable content.
What doe sit mean for a moral theory to demonstrate usefulness in Moral Problem solving?
A good moral theory helps us solve moral problems in real life situations. It helps us make reliable judgements about moral principles and actions and resolve conflicts within judgements and principles and within the theory itself. But usefulness doesn't not make a moral theory good on its own, although it is necessary, for any theory that lack usefulness is dubious.
What is an argument?
A group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. The supporting statements are known as premises and the statement being supported is the conclusion.
What are "considered moral judgements"
A moral assessment that is as free from bias and distorting passions as possible. We generally trust such a judgement unless there is a reason to doubt it.
How does a moral theory and premise sometimes work together?
A moral theory can act as a statement as the moral premise in an argument. Often a moral premise is at least backed up by a moral theory from which it is derived. To test it, one must examine the supporting principles or the general norm of the theory.
What is Principlism?
A moral theory consisting of multiple moral principles that must be weighed and balanced against one another to determine right actions.
What do moral theories, theories of obligation, say about what makes an action right or wrong?
A particular action is right or wrong because it has this property or characteristic.
what are negative rights?
A person's right that obligates others not to interfere with that person's obtaining something
What are positive rights?
A person's right that obligates others to help that person obtain something
What does it mean for a moral theory to have consistency with our moral experiences?
A plausible moral theory should be consistent with moral background knowledge- with what we take to be the fundamental facts of our moral experience such as that few of us would deny: 1. We sometimes make moral judgments 2. We often give particular reasons for moral beliefs 3. We are sometimes mistaken for our moral beliefs 4. we occasionally have moral disagreements 5. We occasionally commit wrongful acts. Thus when a theory conflicts with considered moral judgments, a theory that conflicts with these experiences is usually false. If it is inconsistent with the moral life and denies that we do not have one or more of the basic moral experiences, it is false. Example theory two: What is right is what we feel is right. This theory suggests we are never mistaken about our moral beliefs, yet our moral experience tells us that we are not morally infallible, therefore this theory is problematic.
What does it mean for a moral theory to have consistency with considered moral judgements?
A plausible theory must be consistent with the data it was introduced to explain. In explaining what makes an action right, the data relevant to that issue are our considered moral judgements. Moral judgements are formed under careful deliberation under conditions that minimize bias/ error, therefore, they ought to have considerable weight as reasons or evidence in moral matters, even though they can be mistaken and other considerations can sometimes overrule them. There is something wrong with a theory that approves of the murder of innocent people, the torture of children, or the enslavement of men and women. Theory 1: The right actions are those that are enhancing the harmonious function of a community. but, if killing someone, a heinous act, enhanced the harmonious functioning of the community, killing would be right. This conflict with the considered moral judgement that murdering an innocent person just to make the communty happy is wrong, thus theory would would be rejected.
What is a moral code?
A simple set of rules. It is less useful than a moral theory. Rules inevitably conflict while providing no means for resolving these inconsistencies. The rules are general to the point of not covering specific situations but are not general enough to help us deal with such an array of specifics. Moral codes are not substitutes for a plausible moral theory.
What is a moral statement?
A statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one's motive or character) is good or bad. Capital punishment is wrong Jene should not have lied You ought to treat him as he treated you Tania is a good person Cruelty to animals is immoral Words: wrong, should, ought, good, immoral
What is a nonmoral statement?
A statement that does not affirm that action is right or wrong or that a person (or one's motive or character) is good or bad. They assert that a state of affairs is actual but do not assign a moral value to it. This is a good library Jack ought to invest in stocks They also describe a state of affairs that touches on moral concerns - without being moral statements: Many people think that capital punishment is wrong Jena did not lie You treated him as he treated you Tania tries to be a good person Animals are treated cruelly
What is a statement?
A statement, or claim, is an assertion that something is or is not the case; it is either true or false. Reasons supporting a statement are themselves statements. "the ship sailed on the wind-tossed sea" "I feel tired and listless" "Murder is wrong" "5+5=10" "A circle is not a square"
What is a premise?
A supporting statement in an argument
What is argument diagramming?
A tool to help penetrate all the verbiage to uncover the essential argument. Knowing the structure of an argument is a prerequisite to devising, deconstructing and finally evaluating an argument. First, you number all the statements. Next, you underline the premise/ conclusion indicator words. Next, we search for the conclusion and double underline it and underline additional premises. Then we cross out the rest of the information. We then cross each statement out that are left. Then we draw a diagram with numbers representing the statements. Then each arrow you draw between the premises that support the conclusion. You see draw the premises that have a direct relationship with the conclusion and whether they are backed up by a previous premise or combined with another premise first. Some premises are dependent and others are independent.
What is it meant to say an argument is sound?
A valid argument with true premises
What are inductive arguments?
An argument that is suppose to offer probable support to its conclusion.
What are deductive arguments?
An argument that is supposed to give logical conclusive support to its conclusion. It offers support meant to be unshakable. It's said to be valid. The structure of this argument renders it either valid or invalid and validity is a separate matter from the truth of the argument's statement. Its statements (premises/ conclusions must be either true or false, and has nothing to do with validity.
What is a self evident statement?
An assertion that a person is justified in believing merely by understanding it, such as "No bachelors are married" Equals should be treated equally It is wrong to punish the innocent It is wrong to inflict unnecessary and undeserving suffering It is wrong to torture people for fun
What is moral theory?
An explanation of what makes an action right or what makes a person or thing good. Its focus is not the rightness or goodness of specific actions or persons but the very nature of rightness or goodness itself. Moral theories concerned with the goodness of persons or things is known as theories of value. Moral theories concerned with the rightness or wrongness of actions are called theories of obligation.
What is the categorical imperitive?
An imperative that we should follow regardless of our particular wants and needs; also, the principle that defines Kant's Theory. "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant's forms f this principle seem to be separate principles. It is self evident, and relies on reasoning The principle and maxims derived from it are universal and absolutist, meaning they are moral laws with no exceptions.
What is a strong argument- inductive type
An inductive argument that does in fact provide probable support for its conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
What is a weak argument- inductive type
An inductive argument that does not give probably support to the conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion is not probable (not more likely to be true than not true.
What is Kant's Theory?
Asserts that the morally right action is the one done in accordance with the categorical imperative. Every action implies a rule or maximum that says always to do this in these circumstances. An action is right if you could rationally will the rule to be universal-to have everyone in a similar situation always act accordingly to the same rule.
What is utilitarianism? (consequentialist theory)
Asserts the morally right actions is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. The right action maximizes the good, in that everyone affected by the action must be included in any proper calculation of overall consequences, and the decided action must be better than the alternative action
What do all types of arguments have in common?
At least one premise is intended to support a conclusion
What does Guy P. Harrison say about what can be done about the Dunning- Kruger problem?
Awareness of the problem we all have can inspire a pause, and to recall that confidence is not the same thing as knowledge. The Dunning Kruger effect explains much of the folly you find on social media.
Why to natural law theorist claim that unnatural sexual activity is wrong?
Because the natural purpose of sex is procreation, and such practices as homosexual sex and anal sex have nothing to do with procreation, these practices are immoral.
Single premise argument?
Capital punishment is morally permissible because it helps to deter crime
How is human reasoning often undone?
Cognitive biases: Lead us to bad decisions, unfounded conclusions, and regrettable errors. We fall prey to biases without even knowing it. It all has to do with how we handle evidence that pertains tot our beliefs.
How to check an inductive argument?
Common sense may be all thats required to see whether its strong or weak- whether the conclusion follows the premises
What is the appeal to ignorance fallacy?
Consists of arguing that the absence of evidence entitles us to believe a claim. 1. No one has proven that the fetus is not a person, so it must be a person. 2. It is obviously false that a fetus is a person, because science has not proven that it is a person. The problem is that a lack of evidence cannot be evidence for anything. A lack of evidence implies that we are ignorant of the facts. If having no evidence could prove something, we could prove all sorts of outrageous claims.
What is appeal to authority fallacy?
Consists of relying on the opinion of someone thought to be an expert who is not. An expert can be a source of reliable information- but only if he really is an authority in the designated subject area. A true expert is someone who is both knowledgeable about facts and able to make reliable judgements about them. Experts are those that base their opinions on reliable evidence. examples: (1) Cite exerts who are not experts in the field under discussion. (2) cite nonexperts as experts such as those who are prestigious and famous. Two rules of thumb to guide use of expert opinion: 1. If a claim conflict with the consensus of opinion among experts, you have good reasons to doubt the claim 2. If experts disagree about a claim, you again have good reason yo doubt it.
What is the Dunning-Kruger effect?
David Dunning: The common human failing of being ignorant of how ignorant we are. They confidently lecture others on how wrong they are on fine points, but never doubt their own superior understanding on the subject while disgorging an enormous amount of false information and bad arguments.
How to check if an argument is good?
Establishes that you check the arguments form and the truth of its premises.
What are bad arguments known as?
Fallacies: At least one bad premise or a conclusion that does not follow Often persuasive and are frequently employed to mislead the unwary- even in or especially in moral reasoning.
What did John Rawls say about the notion of reflective equilibrium?
He put heavy emphasis on the quality of moral judgements in his own moral theory. What he says about the nature of considered moral judgements is that those that are likely to be erroneous or to be influenced by an excessive attention to self interests, the person making this judgement takes it into account and considered judgements enter as those in which our moral capacities are most likely to be displayed without distortion is presumed to have the ability, the opportunity, and the desire to reach a correct decision.
What is a Hypothetical Syllogism argument?
Hypothetical= conditional Syllogism= three statement deductive argument if Maria walks to work, then she will be late. if she is late, she will be fired. Therefore, if Maria walks to work, she will be fired. If p, then q. If q, then r Therefore, if p, then r It is a valid argument form. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
What is affirming the consequent?
If Maria walks to work, then she will be late. She will be late. Therefore, she will walk to work If p, then q q. Therefore, p. Invalid argument: Even a true consequent, if Maria will be late) doesn't mean that she will walk to work. Some other factors besides her walking could cause maria to be late. The premises can be true while the conclusion is false.
What is denying the antecedent?
If Maria walks to work, then she will be late. She will not walk to work Therefore, she will not be late If p, then q Not p Therefore not q It is always invalid Maria will not walk to work, doesn't mean that she will not be late. She can be late for another reason. The premises can be true and the conclusion false.
Why are breaking promises wrong in Kant's theory?
If the implied rule (something like "break promises whenever you want) were universalized (if everyone followed the rule), then no promise anywhere could be trusted, and the whole convention of promise making would be obliterated- and no one would be willing to live in such a world. Universalizing the rule would result in a logically contradictory state of affairs, a situation that makes no moral sense.
Examine this inductive argument: "Almost all men at this college have high SAT scores. Therefore, Julio (b a male student at the college)probably has high SAT scores.
Inductive because it is intended to provide probable, not decisive support for a conclusion. It is possible for the the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
What is the hasty generalization fallacy?
Is a fallacy of inductive reasoning. It is the mistake of drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or thigs based on an undersized sample of the group.
What is the faulty analogy fallacy?
Is argument by analogy that is weak, the use of a flawed analogy to argue for a conclusion. In strong arguments by analogy, not only must the degree of similarity be great, but the similarities must also be relevant. This means that the similarities must relate specifically to the conclusion. irrelevant similarities cannot strengthen an argument.
What is motivated reasoning?
Is reasoning for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conclusion, not to uncover the truth. It confirmation bias on steroids'. people who use it then set out to collect evidence that supports that conclusions and ignore, dismiss, and downplay, any evidence that contradicts that view. It tries to prove something, not determine if that proof is any good. Truth is beside the point. You can avoid following the trap by doing the following: 1. Giving opposing views a chance, do not dismiss them out of hand. Examine them carefully before passing judgement. 2. Be reasonably skeptical of all sources, but especially of those that support your beliefs. 3. Be extra careful in evaluating the credibility of sources that contradict your beliefs.
What is the begging the question fallacy?
Is the fallacy of arguing in a circle- that is trying to use a statement as both a premise in an argument and the conclusion of that argument. It repeats the premise but in different words. P is true because P is true. 1. Women in Muslim countries, regardless of their social status and economic limitations, are entitled to certain rights, including but no necessarily limited to suffrage. 2. Therefore, all women in Muslim countries have the right to vote in political elections. =Women in Muslim countries have the right to vote because women in Muslim countries have a right to vote.
What is the slippery slope fallacy?
Is the use of dubious premises to argue that doing a particular action will inevitably lead to other actions that will result in disaster, so the first action should not be done. It is legitimate if the premises are solid- that is if there are good reasons to consider the action will lead to disaster. 1. Rampant proliferation of pornography on the internet leads to obsession with pornographic material. 2. Obsession with pornographic materials disrupts relationships, and that disruption leads to divorce. 3. Therefore, we should ban pornography on the internet. -Often these arguments are missing a moral premise: scientific evidence does not show this cause and effect.
How does one avoid using fallacies or being taken in by them?
Is to study them so you know how they work and can easily identify them
What is the strawman fallacy?
It amounts to misrepresenting someone's claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted. The opponent argues against the distorted version and then concludes that your original position should be rejected. I flies in the face of moral reasoning to seek understanding through critical thinking and fair and honest exploration of issues.
What is the equivocation fallacy?
It assigns two different meanings to the same term in an argument. 1. A fetus is an individual that is indisputably human 2. A human is endowed with rights that cannot be invalidated, including a right to life. 3. Therefore a fetus has a right to life. =The argument equivocates on the word human. In premise 1 , the term means to have human DNA. In premise 2, human is use din the sense of person- an individual having full moral rights. Since the premises refer to two different things, the conclusion does not follow.
What is a moral theory?
It explains what makes an action right. We value it because it identifies for us the essence of rightness and thereby helps us make moral judgments, derive moral principles, and resolve conflicts between moral statements. A moral theory helps us see beyond the rules or moral codes. It provides us with general norms that are substantial enough to inform our moral reasoning.
What is a dependent premise?
It gives little or no support on its own and requires the assistance of at least one other premise
What is moral reasoning?
It is ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics. Critical reasoning (critical thinking) is the careful, systematic evaluation of statements or claims to determine whether a statement is worthy of acceptance, or believable.
What is persuasion/ to persuade?
It is to influence her opinion by any number of means, including emotional appeals, linguistic or rhetorical tricks, deception, threats, propaganda, and more. if you see some of these ploys, you will not have established that the claim is worth believing.
What is an independent premise?
It supports a conclusion without relying on any other premises
How to check deductive arguments?
Just thinking about how the premises are related to the conclusion is often sufficient.
What is distributive justice?
Justice concerning the fair distribution of society's benefits and costs (such as income, taxes, jobs, and public service) Equals must be treated equally
What is retributive justice?
Justice concerning the fair use of punishment for wrongdoing
What is the appeal to person fallacy?
Known as ad hominem: This is the fallacy of arguing that a claim should be rejected solely because of other characteristics of the person who makes it. The claim is rejected on the grounds that the person making it has a particular character, political affiliation, or motive and they are irrelevant to the truth of a claim. Any kind of person can construct an argument, it =s about the quality of reasoning and evidence behind it.
What is the most reliable way to identify arguments?
Look for the conclusion first
What is critical in terms of implicit premises in moral arguments?
Making implicit premises explicit is always a good idea, but in moral arguments it is critical. The unseen premises are the ones most likely to be dubious or unfounded, a problem that can arise whether an argument is yours or someone elses. To many times unstated premises are assumptions that you may be barely aware of; they might be true, unacknowledged source of disagreement between you and others, no premise should be left unexamined.
What three arguments are always valid?
Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent), modus tollens (denying the consequent), and the hypothetical syllogism are always valid
Evaluate the all natural theory? The right actions are not natural and the wrong ones are not.
Natural actions in this instance are: 1. Those in accordance with biological urges and needs of human beings 2. those that reflect typical human psychological tendencies and patterns. 3. Those that help ensure the survival of the human species Permissible actions: walking, talking, eating, having sex, cooperating with others, caring for loved ones, teaching children, creating art, growing food, building shelters, going to war, solving problems, and protecting the environment Impermissible actions; building spaceships, using birth control, using performance enhancing drugs, being a loner/ hermit, intervening in se processes (cloning, abortion, fertility treatments, stem cell research) One inconsistency would be that preventing fertility treatments, essential for the survival of the human species, would conflict with principles 3, and 2 and one(the need to raise a family is a tendency/ pattern and biological urge, to inhibit this would be wrong.
What are indicator words that point to the presence that an argument is deductive?
Necessarily follows that, it must be the case that, it logically follows that, conclusively, and necessarily.
Is theory evaluation a mechanical process?
No, there is no formula/ set instructions for applying the three criteria to a theory or a calculating machine to discern how much weight to give criteria in a particular situation. We must make informal judgements about the importance of particular criteria in each new instance. Applying criteria is rational and objective!
What is the most important principle to consider when evaluating nonmoral premises?
Nonmoral premises must be supported by good reasons. Nonmoral premises must be backed by scientific research, the opinions of trustworthy experts, pertinent examples and analogies, historical records, or our own background knowledge (claims that we have excellent reasons to believe) -Ask if the statement true and what reasons do I have for believing this?
What is the starting point in theorizing as well as the corroboration of what we learn?
Our moral judgments. We are entitled to trust the urgings of common sense unless we have good reasons to doubt them. Then we consider threading moral principles and similar cases that violate the similar principle, modify the principle to accurately reflect multiple similar cases, continually test if they lead to reasonable judgments by comparing them to principles, and eliminate conflicts to achieve the closest possible agreement. Thus this common-sense shapes a theory, and the theory informs common sense.
2 premise argument?
Premise 1: If John killed Bill in self-defense he did not commit murder. Premise 2: He did an act of self-defense. Conclusion: Therefore, he did not commit murder.
3 premise argument?
Premise 1: We should judge the rightness of an act by its impact on the human well-being. Premise 2: If an act increases human well being, then it is right Premise 3: Without question, telling a white lie increases human well being because it spares people's feelings Conclusion: Telling a white lie is morally permissible.
What is the basic standard of classic utilitarianism?
Right actions are those that directly produce the greatest overall happiness, with everyone considered. What matters most are the consequences of the actions. What ought t be the most important factor in moral life (happiness) and provides a procedure (choose the action that creates the most units of happiness) for making judgments about right and wrong actions
What is our ultimate goal when evaluating a moral premise?
Should be to ensure that all of our moral beliefs are as logically consistent as we can make them.
How can we evaluate moral theories? What is the first step, then the second?
Standards used to appraise theories: 1. Requirement of coherence 2. Use the Moral Criteria of Adequacy
What does it mean to be in the realm of moral theory?
Stepping back from considerations the interplay of moral judgments and moral principles and ask if a trusted moral principle is truly sound, whether a conflict of principals can be resolved, or if a new principle can handle cases that we have never had to address before. When we puzzle over these things, we are in the realm of moral theory in which we try to make use, make, or revise a moral theory or a piece of one.
What are indicator words?
Terms that often appear in arguments to signal the presence of a premise or conclusion, or to indicate that an argument is deductive or inductive. Therefore, because consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be that, as a result, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by.
What makes an argument a moral argument?
That its conclusion is always a moral statement
What is a fundamental principle of critical reasoning?
That we should not accept a statement as true without good reasons. If it is, we are entitled to believe it. The better the reasons supporting it, the more likely they are to be true. If reasons are equivocal- if they do not help us to decide either way- we should suspend our judgement until evidence is more definitive.
How can we evaluate moral premises?
The best approach is to use counter examples to make the argument a whole lot better, impervious to such counter examples. It is a way to consult our considered moral judgments and if such moral judgments are at odds with a moral premise that is based on a cherished moral principle or moral theory from which it is derived. We may need to reexamine the claims involved and how they are related. If we do and find our judgments are on solid ground and the premise, principle, or theory needs to be adjusted- or vice versa. -not to consult scientific studies or an opinion poll as we may when examining nonmoral premises
Utilitarianism is rejected by a lot of philosophers, but what is the valuable point that is still taken seriously?
The consequences do matter.
A conditional argument: Modus Ponens: Affirming the antecedent
The first premise is a compound statement, consisting of two constituent statements, p and q. It has at least one conditional premise- a premise in an if-then pattern (if p, then q). Two parts of a conditional premise are known as the antecedent (which begins with if) and the consequent (which follows then) Its name is modus ponens or affirming the antecedent. This form is always valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true.
What was W.D Ross known for?
The fist to devise a theory of prima facie duties Duties of: 1.fidelity (keeping promises,, telling the truth) 2.reparation (making amends for a wrongful act) 3.graditude (acknowledging services done for us by others) 4.justice (distributing benefits and burden fairly) beneficence (benefiting others) 5.self improvement (enhancing our own virtue or intelligence) 6.non-malficence (not injuring others)
What is reflective equilibrium?
The give and take between theory and judgement in a way that they should fit together as closely as possible with maximum agreement between them, similar to science investigations in theory and experimental data is reconciled.
What is rule utilitarianism?
The morally right action is the one covered by a rule that, if generally followed, would produce the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. The consequences of following a general rule are of supreme importance- not the direct consequences of performing an action. Specific rules are justified because if people follow them all the time, the result will be a general maximization of good or evil. We are to follow the rules in particular circumstances even if doing so results in bad consequences themselves.
What is the divine command theory (non-consequentialist)
The morally right action is the one that God commands. An action is only right if God says it is right, it does not matter the consequences. An action may be deemed right even though it does not maximize the good, or deemed wrong even if it does maximize the good. It make incorporate one principle only (God makes rightness) or the core principles of several subordinate rules, such as the Ten Commandments as God-made moral code.
What is act utilitarianism?
The morally right action is the one that directly produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered. The consequences that flow directly from a particular action are all that matter, rules are irrelevant to this calculation. Each situation calling for a moral judgment is unique and demands a new calculation of the balance of good over evil. Thus breaking a promise may be right in one situation and wrong in another, depending on the consequences.
What is the natural law theory? (non-consequentialist)
The morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature. The natural world, including humankind, exhibits a rational order in which everything has its proper place and purpose, with each thing given a specific role to play by God. Natural laws reflect how the world is as well as how it should be. people are supposed to live according to natural law- they are to fulfill their rightful, natural purpose. To act morally is to act naturally, they must do what they were designed to do by God: Obey absolutist moral rules that anyone can read in the natural order. Also, humans can discover what is natural, and thus moral, through reason. God has created a natural order and given humans the gift of rationality t correctly apprehend this order. This means any rational person- religious or not- can discern the moral rules and live a moral life.
What is ethical egoism?
The morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable good over evil for oneself. The right action advances one's best interests. This approach tends to conflict with commonsense experience as well as with other basic principles of other moral theories.
What is argumentation?
The presenting of an argument is not the same thing as persuasion. To offer a good argument is to present reasons why a particular assertion is true. If you articulate a good argument, then you prove something- and others may just be persuaded by your reasoning
What are non-consequentialist theories (deontological)?
The rightness of an action does not depend entirely on its consequences. But it depends primarily on the nature of the action itself. What matters is the kind of action in question. An action could be morally right even though it produces less good than any alternative action. For example: to tell a lie violates an exceptionless rule.
What do we learn from Kant and other non-consequentialists in terms of general norms and values?
The supreme importance of autonomy, rights, and justice.
What is the availability of error?
The tendency to reply on evidence not because its reliable but because its vivid or memorable- in other words, psychologically available. Deciding a city has a rise in crime because of what we see on TV about a mugging; if we decide that public transit are dangerous because of a bus involved in a fender bender, if we believe a politician is not trustworthy because he is nervous, believing that air travel is more dangerous because a media report about a plane crash when research says otherwise. We can avoid this error by using reliable research and data, to rule out extraneous variables (like psychological vividness)
What do we learn about utilitarianism and consequentialism in terms of general norms and values?
Theories must take into account the effects of actions and demands of beneficence and non-maleficence.
What are some similarities between science and ethics in handling theory and data?
Theory explains data in science and vice versa and contributes to finding the truth, likewise, ethical theory and moral judgments help shape each other and shed light on judgments and help adjudicate conflicts between judgments and other moral statements.