first 3 summaries (hilary)

Chapter 3

Evaluating Moral Arguments

What Is Moral Reasoning?

Moral reasoningis ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics.

Critical reasoning(also called critical thinking) is the careful, systematic evaluation of statementsand arguments.

Statements

A statement(or claim) is the assertion that something is either true or false. The following are examples of statements:

• “Murder is wrong.”
• “1 + 1 = 2”
• “Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.”

Statements and Arguments –1

When at least one statement attempts to provide reasons for believing another statement, we have an argument—a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest.

Statements and Arguments –2

The supporting statements are called premises.

The statement that is being supported by the others is the conclusion.

Identifying Arguments

• An argumentis intended to prove something.
• All arguments share a pattern: at least one premise is required to support a conclusion.
• A cluster of unsupported claims is not an argument.
• The most reliable way to identify arguments is to look for the conclusion first.
• Look for indicator words:terms that often appear in arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion may be nearby.
  • Some words indicating a conclusion:
    • Therefore, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be that
  • Some words indicating a premise:
    • Because, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by

Two Forms of Argument

A deductive argumentis supposed to give logically conclusivesupport to its conclusion.

An inductive argumentis supposed to offer probablesupport to its conclusion.

Common Deductive Argument Forms

Valid forms:

• Denying the antecedent
• Affirming the consequent

Invalid forms:

• Affirming the antecedent(modus ponens)
• Denying the consequent(modus tollens)
• The hypothetical syllogism

Deductive Arguments

A deductive argument isvalidif the premises support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

A deductive argument is invalidif the premises do not support the conclusion. That is, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion may or may not be true.

A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true.

A deductive argument is unsound if it is invalid and/or any of its premises are false.

Inductive Arguments

An inductive argument is strongif it gives probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is also likely to be true.

An inductive argument is weak if it does not give probable support to its conclusion. That is, if its premises are true, its conclusion is not more probable than not to be true.

An inductive argument is cogentif it is strong and all of its premises are true.

An inductive argument is not cogent if it is weakand/or any of its premises are false.

Implied Premises

When you evaluate an argument, you should try to explicitly state any implied premise whenever the following applies:

• There seems to be a logical gap between premises or between premises and the conclusion.
• The missing material is not a commonsense assumption.

Moral Statements

A moral statementis a statement affirming that an action is right or wrong, or that a person is good or bad.

For example:

• “Capital punishment is wrong.”
• “Jena should not have lied.”

A nonmoral statement asserts a state of affairs is true or false without assigning a moral value to it.

For example:

• “Many people think that capital punishment is wrong.”
• “Jena did not lie.”

Moral Statements in Moral Arguments

Every moral argument should offer at least one premise that is a moral statement and affirms a moral principle.

Without a moral premise, we cannot make a moral argument. We cannot establish what oughtor should bebased solely on what is.

Every moral argument should also include at least one premise that is a nonmoral statement.

Testing Moral Premises

“Causing a person’s death is wrong.”

To test this premise, consider all the possible circumstances under which it may bemorally acceptable to “cause a person’s death”:

• in self-defense?
• in war?
• to save many other lives?

Avoiding Bad Arguments

Bad arguments come in many shapes and sizes, but they all have one or both of these problems:

• at least one false premise
• a conclusion that doesn’t follow from its premises

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –1

Begging the question: the fallacy of arguing in a circle

“Women in Muslim countries are entitled to certain rights, including, but not limited to, suffrage. Therefore, all women in Muslim countries have the right to vote.”

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –2

Equivocation: the fallacy ofassigning two different meanings to the same term in an argument

“A fetus is an individual that is indisputably human. A human is endowed with rights that cannot be invalidated, including the right to life. Therefore, a fetus has a right to life.”

(The equivocation hinges on the two different meanings of “human” asserted here.)

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –3

Appeal to authority: the fallacy ofrelying on the opinion of someone thought to be an expert but is not

Two ways to commit the fallacy:

1. citing experts in some field, but who are not experts in the field under discussion
2. citing nonexperts as experts

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –4

Slippery slope: the fallacy of using 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

“Rampant proliferation of pornography on the Internet leads to an obsession with pornographic materials. Obsession with pornographic materials disrupts relationships, leads to divorce, and ultimately destroys society. Therefore, we should ban pornography.”

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –5

Faulty analogy:the argument by a weak analogy

• A weak analogy is one in which there is a lack of significant and relevant similarity in comparison.

Example of faulty analogy:

1. Humans feel pain, care for their young, live in social groups, and understand nuclear physics.
2. Apes also feel pain, care for their young, and live in social groups.
3. Therefore, apes can understand nuclear physics.

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –6

Appeal to ignorance:the fallacy of arguing that the absence of evidence entitles us to believe a claim

Examples:

• No one has proven that the fetus is not a person, so it is in fact a person.
• It is obviously false that a fetus is a person because science has not proven that it is a person.

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –7

Straw man:the fallacy of misrepresenting someone’s claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted

Example:

• Actual statement: “We should adopt a code of ethics for our professional society that is essentially secular, so that it can be used by all of our members, regardless of their religious beliefs.”
• Straw-man characterization: “Clearly, our colleague wants to strip religious faith away from every member of our profession and to banish religion entirely from the realm of ethics.”

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –8

Appeal to the person (ad hominem): the fallacy of arguing that a claim should be rejected solely because of the characteristics of the person who makes it

Examples:

• “We should reject Alice's assertion that cheating on your taxes is wrong. She's a political libertarian.”
• “Jerome argues that we should all give a portion of our income to feed the hungry people of the world. But that's just what you'd expect a rich guy like him to say. Ignore him.”
• “Maria says that animals have rights and that we shouldn't use animal products on moral grounds. Don't believe a word of it. She owns a fur coat—she's a big hypocrite.”

Common Fallacies in Moral Reasoning –9

Hasty generalization:drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group

Examples:

• In this town three pro-life demonstrators have been arrested for trespassing or assault. I'm telling you, pro-lifers are lawbreakers.
• In the past thirty years, at least two people on death row in this state have been executed and later found to be innocent by DNA evidence. Why is the state constantly executing innocent people?

Writing and Speaking about Moral Issues

Essential elements of good moral essays or conversations:

• a claim to be proved
• an argument for or against the claim
• consideration of alternative views

Credits

This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 3

Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues

Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.