Philosophy Essay

Moral Arguments

A moral argument, like any other type of argument, has premises and a conclusion. Moral arguments, however, differ from non-moral arguments in that their conclusions are moral statements.

A moral statement is a statement asserting that an action is right or wrong, or that something is good or bad.

Note the following moral statements:

* She should keep her promise to you.

* It is wrong to treat him so harshly.

* Abortion is immoral.

* It is right to kill the enemies of Democracy.

Note the following non-moral statements:

* She did not keep her promise to you.

* He was treated harshly.

* Some people think abortion is immoral.

* Some people agree that it is right to kill the enemies of Democracy.

The standard moral argument is a mixture of moral and non-moral statements:

1. At least one premise is a moral statement that asserts a general moral principle or moral standard.

2. At least one premise makes a non-moral claim.

3. The conclusion is a moral statement, or judgment, about a particular case.

Argument One

P.1: It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a child.

P.2: Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child.

C: Therefore, spanking is wrong.

Notice: Premise 1 is a moral statement, affirming a general moral principle; premise 2 is a non-moral statement describing the nature of a specific kind of action; the conclusion is the moral statement that the argument intends to establish.

A standard moral argument has this form for good reason: in a moral argument, we are unable to establish the conclusion (a moral statement) without a moral premise. That is, we cannot infer what should be or ought to be (in the conclusion) from statements about what is.

Look again at our previous argument: suppose it reads like this:

Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child.

Therefore, spanking is wrong.

Note that the premise does not say anything about right or wrong; it just makes a descriptive claim. The conclusion, though, asserts something about right or wrong. So, the premise does not support the conclusion; it does not follow from the descriptive statement.

Look at another example:

Torturing prisoners of war is a case of intentional mistreatment.

Thus, prisoners of war should not be tortured.

The argument, as it is, fails because the moral premise is missing. Now, notice:

Argument Two

No prisoner of war should ever be intentionally mistreated.

Torturing prisoners of war is a case of intentional mistreatment.

Thus, prisoners of war should not be tortured.

Note Well: in the standard moral argument, we need a non-moral premise. Recall, that the conclusion of a moral argument is a conclusion about a particular kind of action. The moral premise, however, is a statement expressing a general moral principle about a much larger class of actions. In order to infer the narrower conclusion from a much broader premise, we need a non-moral statement to bridge the gap.

It is very common to encounter moral arguments that are missing the moral premise: thus, many moral arguments are enthymemes.

Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child.

Therefore, spanking is wrong.

Note: the universal, moral premise is implicit.

Torturing prisoners of war is a case of intentional mistreatment.

Prisoners of war should not be tortured.

Note: the universal, moral premise is implicit.

Usually the moral premise is missing because it is implicit. In such cases, you will need to provide the moral premise.

The best approach to identify an implicit premise is to treat moral arguments as deductive. Your task, then, is to supply a plausible premise that will make the argument valid. Consider:

She lied to her sister for no good reason.

Therefore, she should not have lied to her sister.

Note: the universal, moral premise is implicit.

To make this argument valid you need to supply a general, moral principle:

One should not lie without good reason.

She lied to her sister for no good reason.

Therefore, she should not have lied to her sister

Moral Principles that may need to be supplied:

**Personal Benefit: Acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.

**Principle of Benevolence: Help those in need.

**Principle of Harm: Do not harm others.

**Principle of Honesty: Do not deceive others.

**Principle of Lawfulness: Do not violate the law.

**Principle of Autonomy: Acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body.

** Principle of Justice: Acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

** Rights: Acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.

Types of Moral Principles

· Absolute: no exceptions

· Prima Facie: exceptions, hence, require justification

Types of Justice

· Procedural: Fair chance for due process

· Compensatory: Fair compensation for harm done

· Retributive: Punishment based on desert (on what is deserved)

· Distributive: Fair distribution of benefits and burdens in society

Three Rules of Moral Reasoning

1. “Ought implies Can”: No person should be held to an impossible standard.

2. “One cannot derive an Ought from an Is”: One must not confuse judgments of fact and judgements of value.

3. “Like Cases must be Treated Alike”: It is unjust to use two different measures for two different weights.

Some Moral Theories

Subjective Moral Relativism:

· This view states that Y is right or wrong for person X because person X approves or disapproves of Y. Thus, subjective moral relativism is the theory underlying the claim that “Y is wrong for me.”

· Problems: This view assumes that person Y is infallible because whatever person Y says is right or wrong is, simply because he or she says it, right or wrong. Moreover, this view assumes that no one can be wrong about his or her moral claims; this view, then, rejects the basic framework of logic.

· This view commits the subjectivist fallacy: Committed whenever a person holds that something is true merely because he or she wants or believes it to be true.

Types: a. I was brought up to believe X; b. That may be true for you, but it is not for me

· This view also contains the possibility of a slippery slope: This argument claims that once a certain kind of event occurs, other similar events will also occur, and this will lead eventually to disaster.

Cultural Moral Relativism

· This view states that Y is right or wrong because culture X says so. Thus, cultural moral relativism is the theory underlying the claim that “Y is wrong because culture X says so.”

· Problems: The same sort of problems noted above for subjective moral relativism apply here.

Ethical Egoism

· This view states that Y is right or wrong because it promotes the interests of X. This view does not suggest that one should do whatever one wants unless whatever one wants is in one’s best interests.

· Problems: This view encounters some of the same problems as noted above. It adds, in addition, the idea that an action is relative to one’s best interests and one’s best interest might justify any number of questionable actions.

Divine Command Theory

· This view states that Y is right or wrong because God says so (consider the 10 commandments).

· Problem: Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right?

Utilitarianism

· To be studied later. Briefly: this view states that right actions are those that generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Deontological: Kant

· To be studied later. Briefly: this view states that right actions are those that derive from the moral law, that is, one’s duties are determined by the Categorical Imperative.

Conclusion

· Moral inquiry is aimed at discovering the principle involved in any given act.

· Moral deliberation entails that one: a. gather all the relevant nonmoral facts; b. minimize subjectivist influences; c. identify relevant moral principle or principles;

d. determine the relative importance of the principles involved.

Thus, Ethics is about “decision-making.” It is a unique mode of decision-making; one that entails a unique mode of deliberation.

Additional Fallacies

· Ad Hominem : Committed whenever a person targets the one making the argument – and not the argument – as grounds for rejecting the argument.

· Appeal to Authority : Committed whenever a person appeals to an unjustified authority to support an idea or belief.

· Appeal to Emotion : Committed whenever a person appeals to emotions (outrage, fear, pity, guilt, etc.) to persuade another to adopt a belief.

· Appeal to Majority : Committed whenever a person justifies a belief or an idea merely on the grounds that large numbers believe it.

· False Alternative : Committed whenever a person excludes additional alternatives without justification. It usually looks like this: “Either X or Y.”

· Ought Is The ought-is fallacy occurs when you assume that the way you want things to be is the way they are. This is also called wishful thinking: this means that one is believes what one wants to be true no matter the evidence or without evidence at all, or assuming something is not true, because one does not want it to be so.