Forum: Unit II discussion: Unpacking the NSPE code of ethics

PHIL385 — Unit II Concepts

Unit II — Introduction to Normative Ethics fallacy

A common but mistaken form of reasoning. Fallacies feel right, but they are actually unreliable inferences.

is-ought fallacy

The fallacy of arguing for a normative conclusion but considering only descriptive reasons.

normative gap

The inferential gap between descriptive premises and a normative conclusion. The gap means that your premises could all be true and yet your conclusion false. There isn't enough information in your premises for you to reliably reach the conclusion you want.

gap-fillers

Normative principles which can be used to connect descriptive details with normative conclusions. They are normative gap-fillers. (They are also like parts off the shelf, so they have similar responsibilities.)

conditional statement

An if-then statement. A statement in the form of: if X then Y. X is called the antecdent. Y is called the consequent. X is also called the sufficient condition. And Y is also called the necessary condition.

sufficient condtion

The antecedent part of a standard if-then / conditional statement. When a sufficient condtion is met or satisfied you can reliably infer the truth of the other condition (the consequent or necessary condition.) E.g. if your car starts then your battery is charged.

necessary condtion

The consequent part of a standard if-then / conditional statement. If the necessary condition is NOT met then you can reliably infer that the other condition is false (the antecedent or sufficient condtion). Or, if the other condition is true, then you know that the necessary condition must be true. (See the example under sufficient condition.)

fallacy of affirming the consequent

Fallacy of inferring that the sufficient condition is true from the truth of the necessary condition.

E.g. if my car starts then the battery is charged. The battery is charged, so my car will start.

Commonly happens when we explain (or predict) something true and then believe that our explanation (prediction) must be true. E.g. If Newton's law of gravity is true then heavy objects will fall when we drop them. Heavy objects do fall when we drop them. Therefore, Newton's law of gravity is true.

Newton's law of gravity is ONE explanation, but not the only explanation, and not the true one.

normative principle

An conditional statement where the antecedent is descriptive and the consequent is normative. E.g. if an action is treating people as a means, not an end, then that action is wrong. Decision making theories, like normative ethics, provide normative principles.

morality

Feelings about good or bad. Subjective. These can change for an individual, through experience or persuasion, but not standardly criticized in ethics. Your morality can be your starting point, without explanation, but only as your starting point. Arguing about ethics is about convincing other people of the correctness of your choice, even if those people do not share exactly your moral beliefs.

value

The public side of your morality. Those things you can identify as important to you (ethically speaking) from how you feel morally.

instrumental value

A value which gets its worth from some other value, and so is not an intrinsic value. Money, for instance, is an instrumental value. Power may be an instrumental value; or progress, or growth. Engineering examples might include efficiency, speed, or many other design criteria.

intrinsic value

A value that does not depend on other values for its worth. Examples might be happiness, preference satisfaction, courage, knowledge, safety. Sustainability might be viewed as either intrinsic or instrumental. Intrinsic values are contrasted with instrumental values.

ethics

Theories about ``the good''. They can be theories about promoting values, about the nature of right or wrong, about right and wrong in particular areas. Theories of ethics are theories like any other. There are experiments, there is data, there is reason and logic. Theories of ethics are objective.

normative ethics

Normative ethics is the branch of ethics for actions and decisions in particular. These are theories which guide our actions, through principles, in order to promote values. They connect actions with values through principles. I.e. the principle or principles of a theory of normative ethics will guide you in which actions to perform to promote a particular value.

action

An action has three parts: the agent (actor), the action itself, the consequnces of that action. So, if someone lies to you there is the person doing they lying, there is the act of lying, and there is the effect that lying has. Different kinds of values can be located in each of these parts.

The Big Three

The three main kinds of ethical theories. Each theory is designed to promote a particular kind of value in one part of an action.

consequentialism

One of the ``big three" ethical theories. Locates values in the consequences of actions.

deontological ethics

One of the ``big three" ethical theories. Locates values in the action or act itself. Deontology comes from the Greek work 'deon' which means duty or obligation. Deontology looks at the kinds of actions we are obliged to take or not take.

virtue ethics

One of the ``big three" ethical theories. Locates values in the agent. Virtue ethics considers what kinds of character traits (virtues) make someone a good person, and what it means to live a good life, as a good person.

explanation

An explanation is an argument the conclusion of which is a descriptive statement. The premises of that argument are reasons for the conclusion --- i.e. they explain the conclusion. A prediction is just an explanation for an event which hasn't taken place yet.

justification

A justification is an argument the conclusion of which is a normative statement. A justification can have only normative premises. But if there are any descriptive premises, there must be at least one normative principle.

conceptsII.otl 2020/06/19 11:23