Ethical Theories Essay for Faith
nikke.teriha
ethics_for_life_2.pdf
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 1/44
Page 31
Page 30
CHAPTER 2
Moral Reasoning
In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by f orce, the art of
reasoning becomes of the f irst importance.
—THOMAS JEFFERSON
In 1960, Stanley Milgram of Yale University placed an advertisement in the newspaper asking for men to
participate in a scientific study on memory and learning. The participants were told that the purpose of the
experiment was to study the effects of punishment (electric shock) on learning. In fact, the real purpose of the study was to see how far people were willing to go in obeying an authority figure. Although no shock was
actually being delivered, the “learner”—an actor—responded with (apparently) increasing anguish as the shocks
being delivered by the participant supposedly increased in intensity whenever he gave a wrong answer. Despite
repeated pleas from the learner to stop the experiment, two-thirds of the participants administered the requested
450 volts—enough to kill some people—simply because an authority figure told them to continue.* Were these
results simply a fluke?
Several years later, Stanford University conducted a prison simulation experiment that involved twenty-one
male student volunteers who were judged to be stable, mature, and socially well-developed. The volunteers
were randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner. The basement of one of the buildings at Stanford was converted to resemble a prison. Great care was taken to make the prison situation as realistic as possible. The “guards” and “prisoners” wore appropriate uniforms for their roles. The guards were expected to turn up for
work, and the prisoners remained confined to prison twenty-four hours a day. As the experiment progressed, the guards became increasingly aggressive and authoritarian, and the prisoners become more and more passive
and dispirited. After six days, the experiment had to be called off because of the atrocious and immoral behavior
that the guards were exhibiting toward the prisoners.
What would you have done had you been a subject in the Milgram or the Stanford Prison experiment? Most
of us like to think we have the resources
to resist authority or resist getting swept up in cultural roles that allow us to demean other people. But do
we? Milgram writes:
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 2/44
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards
of the majority, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.1
Connections
Which logical fallacy might we be committing when we uncritically follow those in positions of authority? See Chapter 2, pages 55–56.
What are some of the resources we need to resist authority figures, or even our peers, when they urge us to
commit or turn a blind eye to immoral acts? Good moral reasoning skills are certainly one of these resources.
Unlike those who obeyed, those who refused to continue in the Milgram study were able to give well-thought- out reasons for why they should stop. In this chapter we'll learn how to critically analyze moral arguments and how to recognize and overcome faulty reasoning and barriers in our own thinking.
The Three Levels of Thinking
By sharpening our analytical skills, we can become more independent in our thinking and less susceptible to
worldviews that foster narrow-mindedness. The thinking process used in philosophical inquiry can be broken down into three tiers or levels: experience, interpretation, and analysis. Keep in mind that this division is artificial and merely one of emphasis. We never have pure experience or engage in pure analysis. All three levels overlap
and interact with one another (Figure 2.1). Experience provides the material for interpretation and analysis; analysis, in the end, returns to experience. If the results of our analysis are inconsistent with our experience, then
we need to start over and fine-tune our analysis so that it takes into account all relevant experience. Analysis also returns to experience in the form of action or praxis.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 3/44
Page 32
FIGURE 2.1 The Three Levels of Thinking
Experience
Experience is the first level of thinking. Experience goes beyond the five senses: We notice certain events happening, we observe different feelings within ourselves, we have certain intuitions, and we receive information
about the world by reading or hearing about the experiences of others. Experience forms the foundation of the philosophical enterprise. Without experience, there can be no thought.
At this level of thinking, we simply describe our experiences. We do not, at least in theory, interpret or pass
judgment on our experience. Here are examples of statements at the level of experience:
FIGURE 2.2 Statements at the Experience Level
Interpretation
Interpretation involves trying to make sense of our experience. This level of thinking includes individual interpretations of experience as well as collective or cultural interpretations. Some of our interpretations may be
well-informed; others may be based merely on our opinions or personal feelings. Upon analysis, an opinion may
just happen to be true. Even opinions that make good sense and win the approval of others are still only opinions if we cannot support them with good reasons or factual evidence. Figure 2.3 provides some examples
of statements at the level of interpretation.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 4/44
Page 33
FIGURE 2.3 Statements at the Interpretation Level
The interpretations of our experiences taken together form our worldview. Most of us like to think that we
came up with our worldviews regarding morality on our own. In reality, our worldviews are strongly influenced by our upbringing and by cultural norms. Our experience contributes to our worldview, and our worldview also
shapes how we experience the world. For example, in a study on stereotyping, college students were shown a
picture of a White thug beating up a Black man in a business suit. When students were later asked to describe
what they saw, the majority reported that they saw a Black thug beating up a White businessman! By not analyzing our worldview, we can get caught up in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, or vicious cycle, where our
worldview is verified by our “experience” and our experience, in turn, further confirms our distorted worldview.
Analysis
People often blend fact and opinion. It is important, therefore, to learn to distinguish between the two. By learning how to critically analyze our worldview, we can break the vicious cycle we just described. Analysis of
moral issues draws on the findings of other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and the natural sciences; it
also involves an examination of our worldviews in light of fundamental moral intuitions, moral sentiments, and
collective insights.
Analysis demands that we raise our level of consciousness and refuse to accept narrow interpretations of
our experience. As such, analysis often begins with questions about the assumptions underlying our
interpretations. Figure 2.4 includes examples of statements at the analysis level.
The process of moving from experience to interpretation to analysis and from there back to experience again
is ongoing. Analysis is most productive when it is done collectively because people bring with them different
experiences. At the same time, we cannot simply accept other people's interpretations of their experiences at
face value.
Because we are social beings who do not exist apart from a culture and a particular cultural worldview, it is
all too easy for us to be lured into accepting cultural interpretations of reality as truth. Even well-trained philosophers can become captivated by the prevailing cultural worldview or the traditional philosophical
interpretations of their professional colleagues.
When we succumb to the temptation to follow public opinion or accept traditional assumptions without question, we become maintainers of the status quo. As such, we may even become part of the problem.
Analysis that ignores certain relevant aspects of experience can become distorted. The complicity of
philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) in destructive ideologies like Nazism and the promotion of
sexism and elitism in the name of philosophy are all instances of a philosopher accepting a prevailing worldview
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 5/44
Page 34
as truth without bothering to analyze it thoroughly.
FIGURE 2.4 Statements at the Analysis Level
Connections
How do cultural relativists define who is in the moral community? See Chapter 6, pages 176–178.
Some liberation ethicists claim that certain groups of traditionally disempowered people, such as African Americans, women, and economically disadvantaged people, have epistemological privilege. Those who do
not benefit from or are harmed by conventional interpretations of reality, it is argued, are the least likely to buy
into or defend the interpretations that oppress them. Being the least biased in favor of traditional interpretations, they also have the least resistance to analyzing them. This is a reversal of the conventional wisdom that favors
insight and the logical, abstract thinking processes used by well-educated White males.
Whether or not being disempowered or disadvantaged gives one an epistemological advantage is up for
debate. However, we do know that engaging in dialogue with people from diverse backgrounds, rather than only with people who are like us—whether we are socially and economically advantaged or disadvantaged—
can help us make more effective moral decisions.2 For more on conditions that promote moral development see
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 6/44
Page 35
Chapter 3.
Exercises
1. Select a simple experience, such as a man holding a door open for a woman or a student giving a dollar to a beggar on the street. In groups, discuss different interpretations of the experience, being careful not to let prejudice distort your interpretation.
2. Use the three-tiered model of thinking to discuss the following experiences. The interpretations you list do not have to be ones that you personally accept; you might also want to write down some interpretations that are common in our culture. Discuss how your interpretation of this experience has shaped your past experience and actions and how analyzing this issue might affect your future actions regarding the issue.
a. Although Blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 37.4 percent of the
prison inmates.3
b. In the 2008 presidential election 51 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 voted in the presidential election. While this is significantly higher than in previous election years, it is still well below the 65 percent rate for people over the age of 30.
c. More than half of the agricultural workers in the United States are illegal aliens. d. Marijuana use has been decriminalized in Canada but possession is still a crime in most U.S. states. e. Men are much more likely than women to hold high-ranking faculty positions in science departments
at Ivy League colleges in the United States. 3. Choose an experience from your life. Analyze this experience using the three-tiered model.
* Discuss the claim that people who have the least power in a society—those who see the world from “below”—are epistemologically privileged. If you are doing community service with a group of people such as the homeless, the economically disadvantaged, or elderly people in nursing homes, use examples from this experience to illustrate your answer. Explain.
Moral Analysis and Praxis
The following story, which is attributed to Buddha, illustrates what is meant by praxis in moral philosophy: A group of people came across a man dying from a wound from a poison arrow. Instead of trying to save the man,
the crowd stood around debating about where the arrow had come from, who had fired it, and the angle of the
trajectory. Meanwhile, the man dies. The proper goal of the philosopher, according to Buddha, is to save the
dying man, not to stand around engaging in speculation.
Western philosophical methodology has traditionally focused primarily on one mode of analysis—abstract,
logical reasoning—and downplayed praxis. Although logical reasoning is very important in moral philosophy, it
represents only one aspect of what is meant by analysis in moral philosophy.
Feminist Methodology and Praxis in Ethical Analysis
4.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 7/44
Page 36
In an article entitled “Shifting Perspective: A New Approach to Ethics,” Canadian philosopher Sheila Mullett outlines a process for ethical analysis based on what she calls a feminist methodology. Mullett's approach to
ethical analysis involves three steps or dimensions:
1. The first dimension, moral sensitivity, grows out of a collective consciousness raising. Until we develop
an awareness of the experience of violence, victimization, and pain that surrounds us, we will continue to
inadvertently perpetuate it. Only through actually experiencing—directly or indirectly—“this consciousness
of pain,” Mullett argues, “can we begin to cultivate a new attitude towards the social arrangements which
contribute to suffering.”4 College community service learning programs have the potential to enhance our
moral sensitivity.
2. The second dimension is ontological shock. Ontology is the philosophical study of “being” or the nature
of being. Ontological shock is something that shakes us to the very core of our being, thus forcing us to
call into question our cherished worldview or interpretations of our experiences. Simply being aware of the
injustices and pain in the world are not sufficient to motivate us to do this. When we experience ontological shock, the worldview that we once took for granted is displaced, thereby forcing us to
reanalyze our old assumptions. Freshmen who have never lived away from home often experience
ontological shock when they go away to college and come into contact with different ideas and values.
3. The third dimension of analysis is praxis. Praxis refers to the practice of a particular art or skill. In ethics,
praxis requires informed social action. True philosophical analysis always returns with an altered and
heightened consciousness to the world of particular experiences. For example, the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, which created ontological shock among Americans, were
followed by an increase in altruistic behavior among New Yorkers.
Connections
Do we behave altruistically simply out of self-interest? See Chapter 7, pages 205–206.
Liberation Ethics and Social Action
Liberation ethicist Paulo Freire, in his book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, writes: “This shift in
consciousness includes a search for collective actions that can transform the existing unjust social structures….5
Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation.” 6
Indeed, genuine praxis demands a shift away from the manner in which an individual routinely sees the world to
viewing the world through the eyes of the collective “we.” For example, there was an increase in hostility against
Muslim-Americans following 9/11. This type of thinking is due in part to an error or bias in human thinking,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 8/44
Page 37
known as the “one of them/one of us” error, in which we divide the world into the “good guys” (us) and the “bad guys” (them). Hispanic immigrants, especially those who are in the country illegally, also tend to be
relegated to the “them” category. Praxis requires that we become aware of this tendency and work to overcome
it by treating all people with proper respect.
Analysis, in this broader sense, is interactive, interdisciplinary, and directed toward praxis or social action.
This approach is not only richer and more inclusive but also more effective for promoting moral growth. Praxis
demands that we cultivate our own moral character. Until we overcome our own narrow interpretations of the
world and incorporate these changes into our personal life, it is unlikely that we will be able to sustain our
involvement in praxis.
Thought without practice is empty, practice without thought is blind.
—KWAME NKRUMAH, former president of Ghana
Exercises
1. Relate the notion of ontological shock to a time when your worldview was shaken. How did you respond to the shock? Did it make you more morally sensitive and more likely to act upon your moral beliefs? Explain.
The civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s involved the application of moral analysis to praxis. Malcolm X (1925–1965) wrote the following about the importance of taking action in the ongoing struggle against racism:
I believe in political action, yes. Any kind of political action. I believe in action period. Whatever kind of action is necessary. When you hear me say “by any means necessary,” I mean exactly that. I believe in anything that is necessary to correct unjust conditions—political, economic, social, physical, anything that's necessary. I believe in it as long as it's intelligently directed and designed to get
results.7
What do you think Malcolm X meant when he said “by any means necessary”? Relate his comments to the concept of praxis.
3. Who is your hero (your hero can be a real or fictional person)? Is your hero more willing than the average person to engage in serious analysis of his or her own cultural worldviews? More likely to engage in praxis than most people? Explain, using examples to illustrate your answer.
4. * Discuss your choice of community service in terms of the three levels of thinking and the concept of praxis. Relate your service learning as well to Mullett's three dimensions of ethical analysis.
Overcoming Resistance
2.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 9/44
Page 38
Nothing strong, nothing new, nothing urgent penetrates man's mind without crossing resistance.
—HENRI DE LUBAC, Paradoxes (1969)
Most of us hate to be proved wrong. When a particular paradigm becomes thoroughly entrenched in our
worldview, we may begin to see it as fact rather than an interpretation of experience, especially if we benefit by
that particular worldview. For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as a natural part of the world order
by those who benefited from it. Few White people bothered to analyze or even to question the morality of the
practice. Even President Abraham Lincoln did not always support the abolition of slavery in his public statements. In his first inaugural speech, Lincoln reassured the Southern voters that “I have no purpose, directly
or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right
to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”8 Fortunately, Lincoln had the moral courage to reevalute and later
reverse his position on slavery.
To avoid having our worldview challenged, we may use a type of defense mechanism known as resistance.
Defense mechanisms are psychological tools, which we usually learn at an early age, for coping with difficult
situations. Defense mechanisms can be divided into two main types: (1) coping and (2) resistance.
Healthy Defense Mechanisms
Coping, or healthy defense mechanisms, allows us to work through challenges to our worldview and to adjust
our life in ways that maintain our integrity. Healthy ways of coping include logical analysis, objectivity, tolerance
of ambiguity, empathy, and suppression of harmful emotional responses.
Immature Defense Mechanisms
Resistance, in contrast, involves the use of immature defense mechanisms that are rigid, impulsive, maladaptive,
and nonanalytical. Isolation, rationalization, and denial are all examples of immature defense mechanisms.9
Everyone uses defense mechanisms at times to keep from feeling overwhelmed. Children from abusive
backgrounds often find it necessary to construct rigid defenses to avoid being crushed by their circumstances.
The problem arises, though, when people carry these once-appropriate defense mechanisms into their adult life.
When resistance becomes a habitual way of responding to issues, it acts as a barrier to critical analysis of interpretations or worldview (Figure 2.5).
Connections
What are the stages of moral development? See Chapter 3, pages 90–94.
The use of immature defense mechanisms or resistance impedes our moral development. Daniel Hart and
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 10/44
Page 39
Susan Chmiel, in a study of the influence of defense mechanisms on moral reasoning, found a strong relationship
between the use of immature defense mechanisms in adolescence and lower levels of moral development in
adulthood.10 The habitual use of resistance entails avoiding experiences and ideas that challenge our worldview.
This, in itself, can create both anxiety and boredom. Resistance can also numb us to the needs of others,
immobilize us in the face of moral outrage, and prevent us from devising a plan of action.
Rather than being prisoners of our past, we can take steps to overcome immature defense mechanisms,
including recognizing which ones we use, that stand in the way of our making effective moral decisions in our
lives. In identifying our resistance, we may find that we rely primarily on one type of resistance, or we may have
a repertoire of several types depending on the situation. The following are a few of the types of resistance that people are prone to use when their moral views are challenged.
FIGURE 2.5 Resistance as a Defense Mechanism
Ignorance There are situations where we are ignorant simply because the information is not available.
Sometimes, however, we avoid learning about particular issues because we just do not want to know. Some
people think that not knowing excuses them from having to think about the issue or take a stand. As a result, problems such as global warming and poverty continue to get worse. Ignorance is regarded as a vice and a
hindrance to the good life in virtually all world philosophies. Socrates is reputed to have said, “The unexamined
life is not worth living.” Confucius taught that “ignorance is the night of the mind.” “Ignorance,” writes Hindu
Yogi Swami Prabhavananda, “creates all the other obstacles.”11
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 11/44
Page 40
(CALVIN AND HOBBES © 1992 Watterson. Dist. by UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.)
Analyzing Images
1. Has there ever been a time when you've preferred ignorance to being informed? Compare the outcome of your experience to that of Calvin's.
2. Some people accuse college students of taking Calvin's attitude that “ignorance is bliss” when it comes to public life and policies. Do you agree? Support your answer.
Avoidance Rather than seeking out people who have different points of view, we may avoid certain people
and situations and instead hang out only with people who agree with us. Some people who hold very strong
opinions about certain moral issues, yet are insecure in the face of challenges to their position, only read
literature that supports their opinion and only attend social and politcal events, meetings, or rallies attended by
people who agree with them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. More and more Americans over the
past three decades have been choosing to live in communities of like-minded people and to watch television
news shows that support their views.12 The tendency to avoid controversial situations or people with opinions
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 12/44
Page 41
unlike our own can lead to a serious lack of communication and even hostility between people who hold widely opposing points of view.
Denial Andrè Trocme, a leader in the French Resistance in World War II, defined denial as “a willingness to
be self-deceived.”13 During World War II, most Germans tacitly supported the war effort by denying the cruelty
of the Nazi policies. Similarly, parents may be in denial regarding their children's destructive lifestyles until it is too late. Mothers in incestuous families may fail to take action to halt the sexual abuse, not because they don't
care about their children but because they have convinced themselves that such a terrible thing could not really be happening. Denial is also common in people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. Denial keeps people from acknowledging and working on solutions to these pressing moral problems.
Anger We cannot always avoid people who disagree with us. Some people respond by getting angry when
they are confronted with a challenge to their views. Anger may be expressed overtly by physical violence or threats, or it may be expressed more subtly in angry phrases such as “don't force your views on me,” an
expression that implies, ironically, that the person challenging another's views is somehow threatening his or her autonomy. Anger as a form of resistance is most effective in thwarting disagreement when the angry person has
greater social, political, or physical power.
Not all anger involves resistance. We may feel anger or moral indignation when we hear that one of our
favorite professors was denied tenure because he is Arab. Rather than acting as a barrier to analysis, this type of anger may motivate us to correct this injustice by writing a well-argued letter of protest to the local newspaper.
We'll look more into the role of moral sentiments in Chapter 3.
Connections
Why was Eichmann a “good” citizen from the point of view of a cultural relativist? See Chapter 6, page 190
Clichés “Don't force your views on me.” “It's all relative.” “To each his own.” “Things always work out for the best.” “I have a right to my own opinion.” Hannah Arendt wrote that when Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was challenged to analyze the contradictions of his society, he became “genuinely incapable of uttering a single
sentence that was not a cliché.”14 Used sparingly, clichés can be useful for illustrating a point; however, the
habitual use of clichés in responding to challenges to our worldview keeps us from thinking seriously about issues.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 13/44
Page 42
Conformity/Superficial Tolerance Many people are afraid that they will not be accepted by their peers if they disagree with them. Even though they may actually disagree, they go along with the group rather than risk
rejection. For example, suppose that someone at a party makes an offensive ethnic or sexist joke. Rather than speaking up or leaving the room, some people will either laugh or say nothing, thus tolerating and perpetuating the bigotry.
Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything, and so popular that it will include everyone.
—MART IN LUT HER KING JR.
Some people who engage in superficial tolerance really do not have a point of view of their own. The expression “I can see both sides of the issue” often masks a reluctance to analyze the various and often
contradictory sides of a moral issue. Italian poet Dante (1265–1321) had a dim view of people who use this sort of resistance. In his Divine Comedy, he reserved “the darkest places in Hell” for those who decide to
remain neutral when confronted with a moral conflict.
“I'm Struggling” During the Nazi occupation of France in World War II, the 3,500 people of the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon provided refuge for Jews who were fleeing the Nazis. In doing this, the villagers took tremendous risks. When Pierre Sauvage, who directed Weapons of the Spirit—a documentary about the
resistance movement of Le Chambon—was asked years later why the people of Le Chambon acted, while others were still struggling about what to do, Sauvage replied: “Those who struggle don't act; those who act
don't struggle.” It is appropriate to wrestle with moral issues before reaching at least a tentative stand; but for some people, the struggle is used to avoid taking a stand while still creating an appearance of being concerned.
Distractions The use of distractions is a popular means of blocking out conflicting thoughts. Some people hate silence and being alone with their thoughts. They turn on the television or have loud music playing whenever
they are home alone. Or they use alcohol, drugs, food, partying, work, talking on their cell phones, logging onto the Internet, or shopping for things they don't really need as a means of keeping their mind off of their problems.
Indeed, some enterprising people have become wealthy marketing distraction to the public.
Mental hindrances, according to Buddhist teaching, keep us from having clear understanding. For this reason, most Eastern philosophies emphasize the importance of stillness and quiet contemplation for achieving
wisdom. Putting aside resistance often means experiencing uncomfortable feelings and ideas that we have been defending ourselves against. Because giving up old ways of thinking can be both painful and confusing, people will rarely change without being challenged through knowledge perturbation, also known as cognitive
dissonance. Knowledge perturbation occurs when our worldview is called into question, thus throwing us into a state of ontological shock. Socrates was a master at knowledge perturbation. It is also practiced by some
Eastern philosophers and masters.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 14/44
Page 43
Types of Resistance
Resistance is the habitual use of immature defense mechanisms when our worldviews are challenged.
Ignorance Not learning about a particular issue because we don't want to know.
Avoidance Staying away from people and situations that challenge our worldviews.
Denial Refusing to acknowledge problems and issues.
Anger Using threats or violence to keep others from challenging our views.
Clichés Responding with trite sayings or expressions when our views are challenged.
Conformity/Superficial Tolerance Agreeing simply for the sake of agreeing.
“I'm Struggling” Wrestling with an issue as a substitute for taking a stand.
Distractions Turning to diversions to keep from thinking about troubling issues.
Connections
Why was Socrates put to death by the state? See Chapter 1, page 7.
Philosophy is a social pursuit. Both the Socratic method and the traditional master-disciple relationship used in Eastern philosophy provide a supportive context in which the student can engage in self-examination. An
experienced teacher or supportive friends can help us identify and work through our resistance by challenging us and offering constructive criticism.
Doublethink
Because most people resist analyzing their worldviews, they may unwittingly get caught up in doublethink, a
term coined by author George Orwell. Doublethink involves holding two contradictory views at the same time and believing both to be true. Orwell's novel 1984 was written in 1948, in part, as a warning that, unless we
recognize the insidious role of doublethink in our society, we will continue to head down the path toward destruction.
In Allan Bloom's book on U.S. colleges and universities, The Closing of the American Mind, the author
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 15/44
Page 44
claims that most students believe morality is relative and that there are no universal moral values. At the same time, however, these students profess to believe that human equality and tolerance are universal moral values!
There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative…. Students nowadays are unified only in their relativism and in their allegiance to equality…. The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance…. The point is not to correct the mistake and be really right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.
Connections
What are the moral issues in the debate over animal rights? See Chapter 11, pages 371–372.
Doublethink often takes the form of supporting double standards. For example, surveys indicate that most college students believe that women should be the primary caregivers of children, but these students will just as vehemently argue that they believe in equality and freedom of choice for all humans in regard to lifestyle and
career. Many people also claim that they believe in animal rights. They point out that they are morally opposed to hunting or to the mistreatment of pets. Yet they have no qualms about eating meat or wearing animal products
(leather or fur coats).
Sometimes doublethink involves a conflict between our expressed worldview and our actual actions. In
2006, students at Boston College were up in arms when Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was invited to speak at graduation and receive an honorary degree. Student groups called for the invitation to speak
to be revoked because the Bush administration had such a bad record when it came to the issue of freedom of speech. In other words, the students demanded that Rice's freedom to speak at graduation be squelched in order to demonstrate their support of freedom of speech. To use another example, most teachers, even those
who claim to be ardent feminists, treat their female students differently than their male students. They call on the
boys more often, praise their accomplishments more often, and are more tolerant of their disruptive behavior.15
Yet, when teachers are told this, the great majority will deny that it happens in their classroom. When teachers
are shown videotapes of their classes, most are shocked at the extent to which they ignore the girls in the classroom and downplay their abilities.
In other words, doublethink often goes unnoticed. For this reason, it is important to be on the alert for doublethink in our lives. This involves learning what type of resistance we are most likely to use when our views
are challenged. It may seem that, by avoiding conflict, life will be more tranquil; in fact, habitual resistance takes a lot of energy. When we shut out ideas and experiences that conflict with our cherished worldview, we also shut out much of life's richness.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 16/44
Page 45
Exercises
1. Name some of your healthy coping mechanisms. What can you do to strengthen these? 2. What type of resistance are you most likely to use when one of your cherished moral views is challenged?
Illustrate your answer with a specific example of a time you used this type of resistance during a discussion about a moral issue. What can you do to make yourself less prone to use this type of resistance?
3. Relate Orwell's concept of doublethink to a specific current political issue or foreign policy as well as to your own thinking on these issues and policies.
4. Studies focusing on the college experience have found that college freshmen are particularly influenced by peer opinion. Do you think that you were more of a conformist when you first entered college? How did this tendency to conform affect your views on morality?
5. Do you agree with Allan Bloom that the morality espoused by most students involves doublethink? Why or why not? What about the popular belief that morality is relative? How might this theory itself involve doublethink?
6. * If you are doing community service, has it helped you to strengthen your healthy coping mechanisms and to overcome your immature coping mechanisms (resistance)? If so, give specific examples.
The Role of Is and Ought Statements in Ethics
Descriptive Statements
Descriptive statements tell us what is. Descriptive statements are either true or false. As Detective Joe
Friday, of the old Dragnet television series, used to say, “Just the facts, ma'am.” Here are some examples of a descriptive statement:
I saw a man pulling a screaming woman into the bushes outside the Classroom Building at 8:54 A.M.
At 11:17 P.M. last night, my roommate said to me, “I promise to clean the bathroom before I go to bed.”
This morning I saw Gloria coming out of John's room.
The average temperature of Narragansett Bay has increased by 3°F in the past fifty years.
Prescriptive Statements
Prescriptive statements deal with values. They tell us what ought to be:
We ought to tell the truth to Detective Friday about what happened on campus this morning.
It is wrong to (that is, we ought not to) hurt other people for our own amusement.
People ought to keep their promises.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 17/44
Page 46
We ought to cut down on our use of fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming.
Moral values are only one type of value. Nonmoral values include good health; aesthetic values; social values such as power, fame, and popularity; economic values; and political values such as national integrity and
solidarity. Only moral values carry the force of the ought. Although it would be awfully nice to be healthy, wealthy, popular, and a straight A student, moral values, by their very nature, demand that we give them precedence over nonmoral values.
Connections
How can the utilitarian calculus help us make better moral decisions? See Chapter 8, pages 241–244.
Unlike science, which is descriptive, ethics is primarily prescriptive with descriptive statements playing a
supportive role. When making moral decisions, we use descriptive statements about the world and about human nature, along with prescriptive statements about moral values. It is important for making an informed moral decision that we first get our facts straight. For example, in the current debate over same-sex marriage, has
legalizing same-sex marriage weakened traditional marriage, in states and countries where it is legal, as critics claim it will do?
The social sciences are important to ethics because they systematically test our ideas about human nature and society. Our ideas may be useless, and even harmful, if they are not grounded in reality. For example, many
moral philosophers in the past have operated on the assumption that women are not as capable of rationality as are men. Domination of women by men was morally justified on the grounds that women needed the guidance
and protection of men. Good intentions alone, in other words, are insufficient to guide our moral decision making.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
—old English proverb
To use another example, until relatively recently, many physicians lied to patients who were dying.
Physicians justified the practice based on their limited experience with a few distressed patients. When properly controlled studies
were carried out regarding the effects of knowing the truth, it was discovered that people with terminal
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 18/44
Page 47
cancer actually did better and lived longer if they knew the truth about their condition.16
Ethics goes beyond science and observation, however. We cannot go directly from a descriptive statement
about how things are to a statement about how things ought to be. For example, most patients with terminal cancer do better if they know they are dying, but this does not mean that we ought to tell Juan, who is
depressed and suicidal, that he has cancer. Similarly, social scientists have found that individuals are more likely to help those who are most like them, but we cannot decide, based on this description alone, that Professor Smith, who is blond and blue-eyed, ought to offer tutoring only to her blond and blue-eyed students. Instead,
moral judgments and values—such as “do not lie,” “be fair,” and “do no harm”—need to be brought into the picture when we are making a decision about the right course of action.
Exercises
1. Looking back at the scenario about the book bag at the beginning of Chapter 1, construct an imaginary dialogue between yourself and the student who took your book bag. You are trying to convince the student to return your book bag. Which statements in the conversation are descriptive and which are prescriptive? Discuss how these two types of statements support each other.
2. Do you think it is morally acceptable for Professor Smith to give preferential treatment to her blond, blue- eyed students? Why or why not? Would it make any difference if she believed it was right? What if her intentions were “good”? For example, suppose that she genuinely believed that only blue-eyed people had intellectual potential and that it was unfair to give non-blue-eyed people the false hope (by providing tutoring) that they might be able to succeed in college. Would this excuse her behavior?
3. Make a list of general guidelines that you use in making moral decisions. Where did you get these guidelines? Compare your list with those of other students in the class. To what extent do the lists correspond to each other? Is there a general theme or themes underlying your list of guidelines? If so, what are these themes?
4. Some people claim that k nowing what is right is harder than doing what is right. Others say just the opposite: that doing what you know to be right is harder. Which do you find harder? Explain why.
5. Discuss a time when you put, or were tempted to put, nonmoral values over moral values. How did you resolve the conflict? Were you satisfied with how you resolved the conflict? Explain.
Recognizing and Constructing Moral Arguments
The very f irst lesson that we have a right to demand that logic shall teach us is how to make our ideas clear; and a
most important one it is, depreciated only by minds who stand in need of it.
—CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE
Logic
Connections
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 19/44
Page 48
Why is cultural relativism based on faulty logic? See Chapter 6, pages 191–194.
Logic, the study of correct and incorrect reasoning, provides us with the methods and skills to formulate sound moral arguments and to distinguish good arguments from poor arguments. Logic enables us to analyze the logical
consistencies of various ethical theories. Logic also helps us to make better moral decisions. Without correct reasoning, even a person with good intentions can end up causing more harm than good. Although people may be motivated to do what is right, they cannot always figure out what is the best course of action to accomplish
this goal.
In addition, there may be times when we know that a person's argument is faulty, but we refrain from speaking out because we cannot figure out exactly what is wrong with the argument. When this happens, we are more likely to back down on our own position or even adopt the other person's and possibly do something that
we may later regret. When individuals fail to take appropriate moral action or make a moral decision that they later regret, we call it a moral tragedy. A knowledge of logic helps us to break through patterns of resistance
—our own and those of others—and thus avoid moral tragedies.
Recognizing Moral Arguments
The Components of an Argument To distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning, we need to be able to recognize arguments. An argument is made up of two or more propositions; one of these is claimed to
follow from or be supported by the others. A proposition is a statement that expresses a complete thought. It can be either true or false. The conclusion is the proposition that is affirmed or denied on the basis of other
propositions in the argument. The premise is a proposition that supports or gives reasons for accepting the conclusion. An argument can have one or many premises.
In an argument, we move from the premise(s) to the conclusion through a process known as inference:
There are two types of logical arguments: inductive and deductive. In a deductive argument the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises if the premises are true and the reasoning process is valid. For example:
All killing of unarmed people is morally wrong. Capital punishment involves the killing of unarmed people. Therefore, capital punishment is morally wrong.
In the above argument we must accept the conclusion as true, if we accept the premises. Of course, not
everyone accepts the first premises.
With an inductive argument the conclusion probably follows from the premises but we can't be 100
percent sure. The stronger and more complete the premises the stronger the argument. For example:
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 20/44
Page 49
Murder rates are not significantly lower in states that have capital punishment. Therefore, capital punishment is probably not an effective deterrent against murder.
In the above example, we cannot accept the conclusion as necessarily true because there may be other
factors at work that influence the murder rate.
Ethical arguments usually contain both descriptive and prescriptive statements or propositions. A proposition
in a moral argument can also be a lexical definition of a key term. The proposition “lying is any intentionally deceptive message that is stated” gives us a lexical definition of lying. We determine the truth or falsehood of a
lexical definition by looking up the term in a dictionary.
Different sentences can express the same proposition. For example, the statements “torturing children is
wrong,” “it is wrong to torture children,” and “Kinder zu quälen ist unmoralisch” are the same proposition because they all express the same thought. Several propositions can be found in one sentence. French
philosopher René Descartes's famous cogito argument can be summarized in one sentence, “I think, therefore I am,” which contains two propositions: “I think” and “I am.”
Tips for Recognizing and Breaking down Arguments
The entire argument may appear in either one sentence or several sentences. The conclusion can appear anywhere in the argument. Identify the conclusion first. Ask yourself: What is this person trying to prove? The conclusion is often, though not always, preceded by words or phrases known as conclusion indicators, such as
therefore which shows that
hence for these reasons
thus consequently
The premises are often, though not always, preceded by words or phrases known as premise indicators, such as
because may be inferred that
for the reason is that
since as shown by
Underline, or highlight, the conclusion and the premises.
Premise and Conclusion Indicators Some arguments contain terms known as premise indicators and conclusion indicators that can help us identify the conclusion and the premises. Words such as because, since,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 21/44
Page 50
and for can serve as premise indicators. The words therefore, thus, hence, so, as, and consequently are examples of conclusion indicators. Indicators signal that a premise or conclusion follows. In the argument “I
think, therefore I am,” the word therefore tells us that the conclusion is “I am.”
The bad news is that not all arguments contain indicators. In addition, words such as since, for, therefore,
because, and as can serve as premise or conclusion indicators in one context but not in another context. For example, because and therefore can be used in explanations. In the statement “Ying stole the food because his
children were starving,” we are not trying to prove that Ying stole the food; rather, we are explaining why he stole the food.
Breaking down Arguments When breaking down an argument into its components, if there are no premise or conclusion indicators, it is usually easiest to identify the conclusion first. To do this, we should ask ourselves:
What is the argument trying to prove? Let's look at the following inductive argument from a 1927 article by Dr. Joseph Collins entitled “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?”
Every physician should cultivate lying as a fine art…. Many experiences show that patients do not want
the truth about their maladies, and that it is prejudicial to their well-being to know it.17
There are three separate propositions in this argument.
1. [Every physician should cultivate lying as a fine art] 2. [Many experiences show that patients do not want the truth about their maladies] and 3. [(many experiences show) that it is prejudicial to their well-being to k now it (the truth).]
If you cannot identify the conclusion and there are no conclusion or premise indicators, try inserting a conclusion indicator, such as therefore, before the proposition that you suspect might be the conclusion. Or try
inserting a premise indicator, such as because, before the proposition(s) that you think might be the premise(s). If the argument is not essentially changed by the addition of an indicator, this means that it is in the right place.
1. [Every physician should cultivate the fine art of lying] because 2. [Many experiences show that patients do not want the truth about their maladies] and because 3. [(many experiences show) that it is prejudicial to their well-being to k now it (the truth).]
In the preceding argument, the first proposition is the conclusion, and propositions 2 and 3 are the supporting premises. The first premise (proposition 2) is
a descriptive statement about an empirical fact. In this case, we might want to find out how many patients
were surveyed and whether the sample was representative. The second premise (proposition 3) is also a descriptive proposition. The claim is that knowing the truth will bring harm to the patient in the form of anguish
and earlier death.
Connections
Is lying always
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 22/44
Page 51
wrong? See Chapter 10, pages 316–317.
If the premises are found to be false or logically unrelated to the conclusion, as they are in this argument,
then we have a poor argument. However, this does not necessarily mean that the conclusion itself is false or worthless: It is simply unsubstantiated.
Some arguments have unstated premises. It is sometimes assumed that certain beliefs are so generally accepted that there is no need to state them. In the preceding argument, there is an unstated third premise
regarding a moral principle, the principle of nonmaleficence, also known as the “do no harm” principle. You may be surprised to learn that premises about general moral principles or sentiments are often the least controversial of the premises—an observation that runs contrary to the popular belief that morality is relative and
varies from individual to individual.
Rhetoric Many people mistake rhetoric for logical argument. Rhetoric, also known as the art of persuasion, is often used by politicians as a means of promoting a particular worldview rather than analyzing it.
In logical arguments, we end with the conclusion. Rhetoric, in contrast, begins with a conclusion or position. The rhetorician then presents only those claims that support his or her particular position. The purpose of rhetoric is to win over your opponents through the power of persuasive speech; the purpose of argumentation is to
discover the truth. Some people are so emotionally invested in certain opinions on moral issues that they may unknowingly manipulate their arguments to “prove” a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premise.
Constructing Moral Arguments
When constructing an argument about a particular moral issue, we begin by making a list of premises. Never
begin by first stating your position or opinion and then seeking only evidence that supports your particular position in an attempt to persuade those who disagree with you to come around to your way of thinking and to
dismiss any conflicting views.
When coming up with premises, it is generally most productive to work with others, especially those who
disagree with us. According to Socrates, it is through the process of dialogue that we can test our views and, ideally, come closer to discovering the truth. The following is a summary of the steps for constructing an
argument:
1. Develop a list of premises. In a good argument, the premises will be relatively uncontroversial and acceptable to all, or most, reasonable people. Much of the disagreement in moral arguments, as we noted
earlier, stems not from disagreement about basic moral principles but from disagreement about empirical facts or the definitions of ambiguous key terms. It is
important to be able to identify relevant moral principles and ideals; in addition, good moral reasoning
depends on first getting the facts straight rather than relying on unsupported assumptions or opinions. Any ambiguous key terms should be clearly defined and used in a consistent manner throughout your argument.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 23/44
Page 52
2. Eliminate irrelevant or weak premises. After coming up with a list of premises, go back and eliminate any that are weak or irrelevant. Resist the temptation to eliminate premises that do not mesh with your particular opinion regarding the moral issue. Also make sure that there are no obvious gaps in the list of
premises and no fallacies. We will learn how to recognize some of the more common fallacies later in this chapter.
3. Come to a conclusion. The last step in constructing a moral argument is drawing the conclusion. The conclusion should take into account the information in the premises but should not state more than what is
contained therein. Conclusions that are too broad include more than the premises say; conclusions that are too narrow ignore certain premises.
4. Try out the argument on others. The next step is to try out your argument. When doing this, be careful not to slip into rhetoric. Remember, the mark of a good philosopher is to be open-minded.
5. Revise your argument if necessary. The final step in constructing an argument is to revise it in light of
feedback and additional information you receive. This may involve changing or modifying your conclusion. If your argument is weak, you should be open to revising it.
Five Steps for Constructing Moral Arguments
1. Develop a list of premises. 2. Eliminate irrelevant or weak premises. 3. Come to a conclusion. 4. Try out your argument on others. 5. Revise your argument if necessary.
Exercises
1. Break down the following arguments into their premises and conclusions. In each of the arguments, ask yourself whether there are other premises that might strengthen the argument. Also think of premises that might be unstated but simply assumed in each of the arguments.
a. Racism and sexism are wrong because all people deserve equal respect. b. It is immoral to use rabbits in cosmetic experiments because causing pain is immoral, and animals
such as rabbits are capable of feeling pain.
People need to pass a driving test to get a license to drive a car. People should also have to take a test and get a license before they can become a parent. After all, parenting is a greater responsibility and requires more skill than driving.
d. Embryos are not persons with moral rights. Furthermore, the embryos used in stem cell research are going to be discarded anyway. Because we have a moral obligation to help people suffering from disease and the use of stem cell research has the potential to help many of these people, stem cell research should be legal.
c.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 24/44
Page 53
e. We have an obligation to become the best person we can. One of the primary purposes of education is to make us better people. Therefore, colleges should seriously consider having a community service requirement for graduation, since community service has been shown to increase students’ self- esteem and facilitate their moral development.
2. Choose one or more of the following controversial moral issues: a. Reinstating military conscription for men and women between the ages of eighteen and forty-five b. Capital punishment c. Legalization of same-sex marriage d. Abortion for sex selection e. Legalization of marijuana f. Using unmanned drones for assassination g. Lowering the drinking age to 18 h. Requiring all Americans to have healthcare insurance
Working in small groups, construct an argument using the five steps listed on pages 50–51. 3. Look back at the argument you constructed in the previous exercise. To what extent were you tempted to
engage in rhetoric instead of logical analysis by using only those statements that supported your particular opinion on the topic? Did working in a group make it easier for you to avoid rhetoric? Explain.
Avoiding Informal Fallacies
… arguments, like men, are of ten pretenders.
—PLAT O
Connections
On what grounds does W.D. Ross argue that moral duties are prima facie rather than absolute? See Chapter 10, pages 321–322.
Most moral arguments are inductive, in part because most moral principles and rights are prima facie; that is
they are binding unless they conflict with a pressing moral duty or right. There are several ways in which an inductive argument can be weak or invalid. For example, the premises may be weak or false. When an inductive argument is psychologically or emotionally persuasive but logically incorrect, it contains what logicians call an informal fallacy. We are more likely to use fallacies when we are unsure of our position. The use of fallacies
may be effective in the short run, but thoughtful people will eventually begin to question the reasoning behind the fallacious argument.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 25/44
Page 54
Being able to recognize and identify fallacies makes us less likely to fall victim to them or to use them unintentionally in an argument.
In this section, we will look at some of the fallacies that are most likely to appear in moral arguments. As
you read through the following descriptions of these fallacies, consider which fallacy or fallacies you are most likely to fall victim to or to use in an argument regarding a moral issue.
Fallacy of Equivocation
Some words or terms—such as right, duty, or relativism—have several definitions. Most often, the context in
which a particular word or phrase is used lets us know which definition is intended; however, this is not always the case. When the meaning of a particular term is unclear from its context or when it could have any of several meanings in a given context, we refer to it as an ambiguous term. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an ambiguous word changes meaning in the course of an argument. For example:
Hans: All people have a right to a minimal level of health care.
Beth: That's not true. Our constitution says nothing about people having a right to health care; therefore, as taxpayers we have no obligation to provide it.
In this argument, Hans and Beth are using differing meanings of the word right. Webster's Encyclopedic
Unabridged Dictionary gives sixty-two different meanings of right! By taking a closer look at their respective arguments, we can see that Hans is most likely talking about rights in terms of moral or human rights, while Beth
is using the term to refer to legal rights.18 Their first task in resolving their disagreement is to agree on which definition of right they will use.
Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, frequently makes use of this fallacy as in the following example from the April 29, 2006, White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in which he equivocates on the word “stand”:
I stand by this man [President George W. Bush]. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound—with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.
Appeal to Force
This fallacy occurs when we use or threaten to use force—whether physical, psychological, or legal—in an attempt to coerce another person to accept our conclusion. The phrase “might is right” summarizes the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind appeal to force. This fallacy is illustrated in the following argument:
Don't disagree with me because if you do I'll slap your #@& face. Don't forget who's paying your tuition. I'll show you who's in charge around here!
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 26/44
Although most people would not be taken in by such overt threats of violence, others such as children may actually come to believe that might does make right. At other times, the intimidation is more subtle. There may be an implied threat to withdraw affection or favors if the other person does not come around to our way of thinking. However, there is no logical connection between being right and having the power to hurt someone else.
This is a particularly dangerous fallacy, not only because it can lead to injury or even death, but because we are taken in by it more often than most of us like to admit. People who have financial, social, or political power over others may come to believe that they deserve their privileged status. This is particularly troublesome when people who lack power start to agree with their oppressors and become resigned to or even blame themselves
for their own oppression and inferior status. The disempowered person may also internalize the message that “might is right” and, in turn, attempt to impose his or her views on others by using force against those who are even more socially disenfranchised.
Abusive Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when we disagree with someone's conclusion, but instead of addressing their argument, we turn and attack or slur the character of the person(s) who made the argument. By doing so, we attempt to evoke a feeling of disapproval toward the person, so that disapproval of the person overflows into disapproval of the person's argument. The abusive fallacy is also known as the ad hominem fallacy.
Lila: I think abortion is morally wrong.
Chloe: You pro-lifers are just a bunch of narrow-minded, anti-choice, religious fanatics who think they have a right to force their religious morality on others.
Lila: Oh, yeah? Well you pro-choice people are nothing but a bunch of selfish baby-killers who are out to destroy the family and all it stands for!
In the preceding conversation, the issue of the morality of abortion has been completely sidetracked.
Instead, Lila and Chloe got caught up in slandering the character of the people who hold the opposing view. When we call people “narrowminded,” “idiots,” “fanatics,” or “selfish baby-killers,” we are dismissing their views without ever analyzing them. (See photo on page 60.)
Connections
According to feminist care ethics how do women usually make moral decisions? See Chapter 3, pages 95–96.
Virtually all great thinkers and reformers, because they challenge us to rethink our cherished worldviews,
have had detractors who have tried to discredit their ideas through character assassination. What distinguishes great thinkers is their ability to remain focused and not be distracted by critics’ use of fallacies against them. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, for example, first met in 1840 at the World Anti-Slavery Society
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 27/44
Page 55
convention in London, where their husbands were attending as delegates.19 The women delegates from
the United States were denied seats at the convention because of the strenuous objections of some male delegates from the United States. Mott, in response, demanded that she be treated with the same respect accorded any man—White or Black. During these discussions, Stanton, who was then a young newlywed,
marveled at the way Mott, a woman of forty-seven, held her own in the argument, “skillfully parried all their
attacks … turning the laugh on them, and then by her earnestness and dignity silencing their ridicule and jeers.”20
This meeting and Mott's refusal to back down in the face of ridicule and attacks upon her character led to the first women's rights meeting in U.S. history.
Circumstantial Fallacy
The circumstantial fallacy occurs when we argue that our opponent should accept a certain position because of special circumstances, such as his or her lifestyle or membership in a particular group based on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or religion. This fallacy, like the previous one, is a type of ad hominem fallacy because it
entails attacking one's opponent rather than addressing his or her argument. Here is one example:
Granted, you may be a vegetarian, but you certainly can't argue against the killing of animals. After all, you do wear leather shoes and use products that were tested on animals.
As in the preceding example, someone can use animal products and still argue against the very practice in which they engage. Likewise, parents who are heavy drinkers or smokers, can give their children sound arguments regarding the evils of alcohol and drug abuse. Being a hypocrite or engaging in doublethink does not
invalidate their arguments against alcohol and drug abuse.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
In an argument, it is appropriate to use the testimony of someone who is an expert in the field or area that is being debated. We commit a fallacy, however, when we appeal to inappropriate authority, to an expert or
authority in a field other than the one under debate. The assumption that someone who is an authority in one field must also be knowledgeable in all other fields is sometimes called the “halo effect.” Here's an example:
Connections
Why are cultural relativists most likely to fall for the fallacies of appeal to authority and popular appeal? See Chapter 6, pages 160–161.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 28/44
Page 56
My priest says that genetic engineering and cloning are dangerous. Therefore, all experimentation in this field should be stopped immediately.
In this example, the person cited as providing support for the conclusion (“all experimentation in this field should be stopped immediately”) is not an expert in the medical field; he is simply someone who is admired as an expert
in his particular field of theology. Titles such as Doctor, Professor, President, and Lieutenant and the visual impact of uniforms such as white lab coats and police or military uniforms all increase our perception of a person's authority. We tend to believe and obey these authority figures even when they overextend their authority to the point where it would be appropriate to question their authority.
Popular Appeal
This fallacy occurs when we appeal to popular opinion to gain support for our conclusion. Popular appeal can take several different forms. The most common one in moral arguments is the bandwagon approach, when a certain conclusion is assumed to be right because “everyone” is doing it or “everyone” believes it. The following
is an example:
In 2009, Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum was ordered by the courts to pay $675,000 in damages for illegally downloading music from the Internet. When he was asked by a CNN news reporter if he thought what he had done was wrong, he replied he did not because “everyone in my generation is doing this.” Therefore, he concluded what he did was “perfectly acceptable.”
Connections
Why are cultural relativists most likely to fall for the fallacies of appeal to authority and popular appeal? See Chapter 6, pages 160–165.
Tenebaum's conclusion, unfortunately, was based on the fallacious assumption that the majority of us, or at least
the majority in his generation, know what is right.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 29/44
Page 57
Scene from the Milgram experiment on obedience at Yale University, 1960–1963. In this experiment, subjects were led to believe that they were delivering real electric shocks to the learner. Despite this two-thirds of the subjects continued to deliver the shocks simply because an authority figure told them to. See opening scenarion on page 30. (From the film Obedience copyright © 1968 by Stanley Milgram, copyright renewed 1993 by Alexandra Milgram, and distributed by Penn State Media Sales.)
Connections
At what stage of moral development are most high school and college students? See Chapter 3, pages 90–92.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 30/44
This fallacy is also committed when we use polls to support the correctness of our positions on issues such as abortion, gun control, or nationalized healthcare. The conclusion is based upon the assumption that the majority of us know what is right. One of the dangers of living in a democracy is what philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) referred to as the “tyranny of the majority.” Historian Alexis de Tocqueville, after visiting the United States in 1826, made the observation that, although democracy liberates us from tradition, the great
democratic danger is enslavement to public opinion.21 Studies show the majority of U.S. citizens define morality in terms of what the majority believe to be right and wrong. Young people often simply accept the norms of their peer group; adults are more likely to uncritically adopt the established norms of the wider community or nation. However, a particular position or conclusion is not necessarily correct just because most people agree with it.
After all, the majority of people once believed that the earth is flat and slavery is natural.
Hasty Generalization
When used properly, generalization can be a valuable tool for gathering information in both the physical and social sciences. The fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when we use only unusual or atypical cases to
support our conclusion. In doing so, we hastily generalize to a rule or conclusion that fits only these unusual cases rather than the whole group. For example, early doctors such as Joseph Collins hastily generalized from their experience with a few patients with terminal cancer to the faulty conclusion that no one with a terminal condition really wants to know the truth about their condition.
Connections
In what ways does cultural relativism contribute to stereotyping and a “we/them” mentality? See Chapter 6, pages 176–180.
Stereotypes and prejudices are often based upon hasty generalizations. A woman who has been abused by her father or boyfriend may hastily generalize from her limited experience to the conclusion that all men are abusers. Negative stereotypes can lead to an unconscious devaluation of whole groups of people, particularly
when not much interaction exists between the different cultural groups. During wartime, governments may intentionally create negative stereotypes of the enemy, thus justifying the dehumanization and destruction of that enemy.
Fallacy of Accident
This fallacy occurs when we apply a rule that is generally accepted as valid to a particular case whose exceptional or accidental circumstances render the rule inappropriate. The fallacy of accident is the opposite of hasty generalization. In this fallacy, we start with the rule and apply it to an unusual or accidental case or
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 31/44
Page 58
circumstance:
The vast majority of rules have exceptions. However, rather than spelling out all the circumstances that might produce an exception, people are expected to use their powers of discernment and reason to decide when a
rule should be applied and when it is inappropriate.
Following is an example of a person taking a rule to be absolutely binding that was never intended to be so:
Going through a red light is illegal. Therefore, Wanda should be given a ticket for going through that red light on the way to the hospital with her dying child.
Almost everyone would accept the rule “stop at red lights” to be a reasonable law. This law is good for most cases, but that does not mean it is appropriate in all cases. In the preceding case, preventing the child's
death—the moral duty of nonmaleficence—should take precedence over obeying the law about stopping at red lights. Indeed, a police officer who pulled Wanda over and gave her a ticket would be considered overly rigid in interpreting the law as well as remiss in his or her moral duties. Like legal rules, moral rules can also have exceptions:
You should keep your promises. You promised to pay back the money I loaned you today. So give it to me—I need it to buy the last few parts for my bomb.
As with the law to stop at red lights, most of us consider “keep your promises” to be a good moral rule.
However, circumstances can render a normally good moral rule inappropriate. In the above example, the moral duty not to abet a malevolent action is more important than the duty to fulfill one's promise to pay back the money on time.
Connections
On what grounds does deontologist W.D. Ross reject the idea of moral duties as absolute? See Chapter 10, page 321.
A rule that is universally accepted as a good rule need not be absolute. We need to consider the context in which the rule is being considered. People who rigidly apply moral rules regardless of the circumstances are
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 32/44
Page 59
known as absolutists. Some people, in their rejection of absolutism, swing to the opposite extreme, moral relativism. They believe that, because moral rules have exceptions, all rules should be thrown out. Indeed, many college freshmen respond to the plethora of ideas that they encounter and the realization that rules are not
absolute by subscribing to moral relativism.
Fallacy of Ignorance
Ignorance, in this fallacy, does not indicate that we are stupid. It simply means that we are ignorant of how to go about proving something. The fallacy of ignorance is committed whenever it is argued that our conclusion is
true simply because it has not been proven false or that it is false because it has not been proven true. However, our being ignorant of how to prove the existence of something such as UFOs or free will does not mean that they do not exist. When we lack proof of a particular phenomenon, the most that we can logically conclude is that we do not know whether or not it exists.
Kwesi: God is clearly the creator of the moral order. Ethicists have been unable to come up with any
other explanation of the source of universal moral principles.
Mercedes:
You're mistaken. The fact that no one can come up with a proof regarding the source of universal moral principles just goes to prove that there are no universal moral principles and that morality is really just a matter of personal opinion.
In this example, both speakers are guilty of using the fallacy of ignorance. Kwesi makes the claim that his conclusion must be true because his opponent cannot prove it false. Mercedes, on the other hand, commits the
fallacy of ignorance when she counters with the argument that, if we cannot identify the source of universal moral principles, then they don't exist.
The ultimate source of universal moral principles has been a source of puzzlement to many ethicists. This does not mean, however, that universal moral principles do not exist. We also don't know the source of the laws
of physics, but this ignorance on our part does not prove that the laws of physics don't exist, nor does it diminish the hold that the laws of physics have upon us as physical beings.
Begging the Question
Begging the question is also known as circular reasoning. This fallacy occurs when a premise and
conclusion are actually rewordings of the same proposition. In other words, when making the argument, we assume the truth of our conclusion rather than offering proof for it as illustrated below:
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 33/44
Page 60
Connections
Why does psychological egoism commit the fallacy of begging the question? See Chapter 7, page 207.
The premise may simply be just a definition or synonym of a key term in the conclusion. At first glance, it may appear to us that the person using this fallacy has an airtight argument because the premise seems to support the conclusion so perfectly. However, upon closer inspection, it will become clear that this is so because, despite differences in language, the premise and conclusion both express the same idea and, in fact, are the same proposition:
Voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable because people have the right to choose when and how they will end their lives.
The conclusion of this argument is a rewording of the premise. Rather than offering proof that voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable, the premise assumes that it is morally acceptable. If we reverse the conclusion and the premise, we are left with exactly the same argument: “Voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable; therefore, people have the right to choose when and how they will end their lives.”
This fallacy can be very frustrating if we fail to recognize it because there seems to be no way to disprove the person's position. The best way to recognize this fallacy is to reverse the premise and conclusion. If this can be done without changing the essence of the argument, then chances are the argument contains the fallacy of
begging the question.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 34/44
Page 61
Anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights students confronting each other at a rally in San Francisco. Arguments over abortion often contain fallacies including the abusive fallacy and name-calling.
Discussion Questions
1. Is the fetus a “person” or human being? The controversy over abortion stems, in part, from an equivocation on the term “person.” Discuss how someone who is anti-abortion and someone who is pro-abortion rights might each define “person” and how their definitions influence their position on abortion.
2. Supporters of legalized abortion may argue that it is unfair that a woman is forced to bring up a child she did not want. Discuss how this argument is based on the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Give examples of other fallacies that may occur in a discussion on the morality of abortion.
3. Have a debate in class on the issue of abortion without using fallacies. Afterwards discuss how avoiding fallacious reasoning helped clarify the issue for you.
Irrelevant Conclusion
In one sense, all the conclusions in fallacious arguments are logically irrelevant. However, in the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, the conclusions are irrelevant in a particular way. This fallacy is committed when we support or reject a conclusion using premises that are, in fact, directed at a different conclusion. In other words,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 35/44
Page 62
we change the topic to a related but different subject that we feel more comfortable discussing.
Sometimes, people will avoid a specific topic that makes them feel uncomfortable by changing the topic to something more general or less controversial. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama used this fallacy in his speech “A More Perfect Union” to deflect attention away from his 20-year association with the controversial figure Reverend Jeremiah Wright by changing the topic to the issue of racism in America. In this way, he avoided answering questions about Rev. Wright's anti-American sermons and his support of radical
leader Louis Farrakhan. In the 2012 campaign presidential candidate Mitt Romney was asked on a CBS news show: “Would you leave [the Obama policy] in place while you worked out a long-term solution or would you just repeal it?” He responded by changing the topic to President Obama's lack of action on the immigration
issue.22
Irrelevant conclusion in a moral argument can also take the form of changing the topic from what one ought to do (a prescriptive question) to what we would do (a descriptive question). In one study, 20 percent of the teenagers interviewed did not seem to understand questions about “what ought (or should) you do?” They chose
to reframe them instead as “what would you do?”23
Rosa: Don't you think that it was wrong for Michael to copy the test answers from the person sitting next to him?
Katrina: Oh, I don't know about that. If I had been in his situation, I probably would have done the same thing.
In this example, Katrina answers Rosa as though the question was about what she would do rather than what she thinks a person ought to do in a similar situation. In doing so, Katrina changes the topic. To say that a student probably would cheat on a test, if they had the opportunity, is not the same as saying that they ought to
cheat on the test. Indeed, we often do things that we know we ought not do.
Naturalistic Fallacy
The naturalistic fallacy is a specific type of irrelevant conclusion. We commit this fallacy when we go from an is to an ought statement. We cannot assume, because something is natural, that it is morally acceptable or
ought to be that way. Homosexual relations have been condemned as immoral on the grounds that homosexual relations are unnatural because they cannot lead
to procreation—the “natural” result of sex. The following example illustrates that nature is certainly not the sole
determinant of what is good.
Only women are physically capable of bearing and nursing children. Therefore, women ought to be the primary caregivers of children.
While it may be true that women are physically capable of bearing and nursing children, and men are not (what is), this does not mean that women have a moral obligation to be the primary caregivers of children (what ought to be). On the other hand, nature sets the limits on what ought to be. We cannot argue that men ought to
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 36/44
Page 63
share equally in the bearing of children because men, by nature, are incapable of bearing children!
People who use the naturalistic fallacy may refer to the natural activities of other animals to support their
position. However, the fact that other animals eat meat, that they sometimes kill and eat their young, or that most animals have several sexual partners (and a few even eat their partner after mating!) does not imply that it is morally acceptable for humans to do so. The morality of these behaviors must be evaluated on grounds other than that it is natural.
Thirteen Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies are psychologically persuasive but incorrect arguments.
Equivocation A key term shifts meaning during the course of an argument.
Appeal to force Force, threat of force, or intimidation is used to coerce our opponents into accepting our conclusion.
Abusive We attack our opponent's character rather than address his or her conclusion.
Circumstantial We argue that our opponent should accept a particular position because of his or her lifestyle or membership in a particular group.
Appeal to inappropriate authority The testimony of someone who is an authority in a different field is used as support for our conclusion.
Popular appeal The opinion of the majority is used as support for our conclusion.
Hasty generalization Our conclusion is based on atypical cases.
Accident We apply a generally accepted rule to an atypical case where the rule is inappropriate.
Ignorance We argue that a certain position is true because it hasn't been proven false or that it is false because it hasn't been proven true.
Begging the question The premise and conclusion are different wordings of the same proposition.
Irrelevant conclusion Our argument is directed at a conclusion different from the one under discussion.
Naturalistic We argue from what is natural to what ought to be the case.
Appeal to tradition We argue that something is moral because it is traditional.
Appeal to Tradition
This fallacy also goes from an is to an ought statement. Whereas the naturalistic fallacy points to what is natural, this fallacy appeals to tradition or cultural norms as a reason for a certain practice. The following argument is
based on the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott case (see pages 178–179 for a selection from the ruling).
The Negro has never been recognized as a person in this country or by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, slavery should remain legal.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 37/44
Page 64
People who use appeal to tradition may argue, as in this example, that a certain practice is moral because it is constitutional. However, the U.S. Constitution is a legal rather than a moral document. Our constitution has allowed slavery and prevented women from voting, but this does not necessarily mean that these traditions are or were moral. On the contrary, the provisions of the constitution itself should be judged in the light of moral
principles.
Connections
On what grounds do rights ethicists argue that moral rights are universal rather than cultural creations? See Chapter 11, pages 361–362.
The fallacy of appeal to tradition is used primarily by cultural relativists to legitimate the status quo. Once a practice becomes a tradition, people begin to accept it as normal and natural, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it harms people. Our current attachment to armed conflicts as a means of resolving international
disputes is a good example of how appeal to tradition inhibits us from thinking of creative alternatives. The traditions of other countries, such as lack of legal and social protection for women and children, have also been used as excuses for exploiting people living in those cultures.
Exercises
1. Identify the fallacy in each of the following arguments. a. I support the oil sanctions Obama and the European Union placed on Iran. After all, Iran has not
proven that they aren't in the process of enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. b. Capital punishment is morally acceptable because murderers should be put to death. c. Euthanasia is wrong because it interferes with the natural dying process. We should wait until it is our
time to die. d. I'm not surprised you're arguing that hate speech should not be banned on college campuses. After all,
you're one of the most hateful, racist, and insensitive people I've ever met. Why, you couldn't care less about the effect of hate speech on its intended victims.
e. I support racial profiling and the questioning of all Arabs by security officials in airports. Remember, it was Arabs who blew up the Twin Trade Towers. They just can't be trusted.
f. Why all this concern about the way women are treated in Afghanistan? After all, women in this country still suffer from discrimination in the workplace.
g.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 38/44
Page 65
My parents used to get into arguments all the time, and they ended up getting divorced. Logic teaches people how to make arguments. Therefore, if you want a happy marriage, you should stay away from logic.
h. “The bullying and humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib is,” as George W. Bush said, ‘a strain on our country's honor and our country's reputation.’ … But let us also recognize what this scandal is not. There is a large difference between forcing prisoners to strip and submit to hazing at Abu Ghraib prison and the sort of things routinely done there under Saddam Hussein. This is a county where mass
tortures, mass murders and mass graves were, until the arrival of the U.S. Army, a way of life.”24
i. It is morally wrong to cause pain to another person. Therefore, dentists are immoral people. j. My philosophy professor doesn't think that the loss of animal and plant species due to the destruction
of rain forests is going to permanently upset the balance of nature. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to continue clearing rain forests for cattle grazing.
k. So you're going to argue in class that alcohol should be banned on campus. Well, this is the last time we're going to ask you to go out with us on the weekend.
l. How can you be in favor of human cloning? After all, you're a Catholic and the church supports a ban on all human cloning.
m. Science has not been able to explain every movement from single cell organism to human beings. Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.
2. Which fallacy are you most likely to use in a discussion about a moral issue? Give an example of a time you used this fallacy. Which fallacy are you most likely to fall for in a discussion about a moral issue? Give an example of a time this fallacy was used on you. What can you do to make yourself less prone to using or falling for these particular fallacies?
3. Consider the argument that you constructed in exercise 2 on pages 51–52. Are there any fallacies in your argument? If necessary, rework the argument so it is fallacy-free.
4. How might you have responded had you been a subject in Milgram's study (see page 56) and wanted to stop but the experimenter said that “you must continue”? Think of a time when you went along with an authority figure, even though you knew what they were doing was wrong. Discuss some strategies you could use to make yourself less prone to falling for appeal to authority.
5. The Bill of Rights was put forth to protect minorities or dissenters from the “tyranny of the majority.” Should those in the minority be protected from the dictates of the majority? Or should the will of the majority always prevail in a democratic nation? Support your answers. (For a copy of the full text of the Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the U.S. Constitution, go to www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.htm.)
6. Discuss some of the common stereotypes of groups found on your campus. Are these based on hasty generalization? How do these stereotypes harm or diminish the autonomy of the people being stereotyped? What effect do the
stereotypes of your group have on your life. Are there steps you and others on your campus could take to overcome these stereotypes?
7. * Contact with diverse groups of people has been found to decrease a person's tendency to stereotype or prejudge people. If you are doing community service work, discuss how, if at all, your work has helped you overcome negative stereotypes about people such as senior citizens and the homeless.
Resolving Moral Dilemmas
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 39/44
Page 66
Moral conf licts are neither systematically avoidable, nor all soluble without remainder.
—BERNARD WILLIAMS, Problems of Self (1973), p. 82
In the movie Sophie's Choice, a guard in the Nazi internment camp tells Sophie, who is standing in a line with her two children, to make a choice: She can choose to have one of her children killed and save the other, or she
can choose not to choose, in which case both children will be killed. The choice facing her is especially agonizing because she is not sure if the guard is serious or if he is only playing a cruel mind game.
What Is a Moral Dilemma?
Situations in which we have a conflict between moral values are known as moral dilemmas. We do not have a
moral dilemma when the conflict is between moral values and nonmoral values such as economic success or popularity. In a moral dilemma, no matter what solution we choose, it will involve doing something wrong in order to do what is right. Solutions to moral dilemmas are not right or wrong, only better or worse. In deciding what to do, like Sophie, the best we can hope for is to find the solution that causes the least harm.
The great majority of moral decisions are straightforward. Moral decision making is such a normal part of our everyday life that we generally don't give it a second thought. We don't struggle about whether we should run down a pedestrian, even though he or she is jaywalking. Instead, we stop or at least try to avoid hitting the person. We don't kill a person, even though we may want to, because he irritates us. Nor do we clobber the person sitting next to us in class and take her textbook simply because we forgot ours. We wait our turn, learn
to share, apologize if we hurt someone, refrain from stealing, and for the most part, get along with others without having to think too much about it.
Sometimes, however, we encounter a situation where the right thing to do is not so clear-cut. Most of us have struggled with moral dilemmas at one time or another. We may be torn between our loyalty to a friend and
telling the truth—particularly when it involves bad news. Or we may have to decide whether to get out of a relationship with an abusive spouse or partner.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 40/44
Page 67
The economic downturn that began in 2007 has left over 600,000 Americans homeless, many of them veterans and
children.i
Discussion Questions
1. A person on the street who appears to be homeless asks you for money. Working in small groups and using the steps for resolving a moral dilemma listed on pages 67–68 come up with a plan of action.
2. Homelessness has also grown among college students due in part to rising tuition and housing costs. Many of these homeless students keep their situation secret for fear of being stigmatized. You have just discovered that one of the students in your class is living out of her car. When you approach her about it, she becomes flustered and denies it. What should you do?
Most people try not to let troublesome problems get out of hand, but this can occur if we do not have the requisite skills for resolving moral dilemmas when they first arise. Even worse, we may not recognize a situation
as a moral dilemma. Because of resistance or inability to resolve moral dilemmas, problems can accumulate and worsen until we find ourselves in a crisis.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 41/44
Page 68
Practice at resolving moral dilemmas has been found to be an effective means of improving our skill at moral reasoning in real-life situations. Dilemmas, by their very nature, demand that we sort out and take a closer look at moral values and learn how they are relevant to making decisions about our lives. In a study of moral reasoning and the college experience, discussion of real-life dilemmas was found to be more effective in
promoting moral reasoning than the acquisition of knowledge in specific content areas, such as the study of
different ethical theories.25
Steps for Resolving Moral Dilemmas
Resolving a moral dilemma is similar to constructing an argument. It begins with the collection of relevant facts and moral principles and ends with a proposed solution or conclusion. As with moral argumentation, it is important to resist the temptation to start with a “solution” and then rationalize it by selecting only the facts and principles that support it.
Steps for Resolving a Moral Dilemma
1. Describe the facts. 2. List the relevant moral principles and concerns. 3. List and evaluate possible courses of action. 4. Devise a plan of action. 5. Carry out the plan of action.
Describe the Facts The first step in resolving a moral dilemma is to come up with a clear description of the case. Avoid the use of emotional or biased language. This description of the facts, which can be as short as a paragraph or two, is similar to the descriptive premises in an argument. When putting together this description,
facts may come to light that we did not initially realize were relevant. In the process, we may discover that what at first appeared to be a moral dilemma was not a dilemma after all. For example, as we noted earlier, doctors who used to routinely lie to cancer patients realized that lying in general was wrong, but they also believed that the conflicting moral principle of “do no harm” was more compelling. However, once they found out that telling
the truth was actually more beneficial to their patients, the conflict between the two principles disappeared.
List Relevant Moral Principles and Sentiments The next step is to identify the relevant moral principles and sentiments. In the physician–patient relationship the duty to tell the truth, have sympathy for the patient, remain loyal, and do no harm were all relevant in the preceding case about physicians. Our relationships with the people involved and our individual temperaments and circumstances all affect how much weight we give to each of the conflicting moral values.
List Possible Courses of Action Once the first two steps are complete, begin listing possible alternative courses of action. This is a time to brainstorm. List any possible actions that come to mind. Some ideas that
may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 42/44
Page 69
seem silly at first may work well in combination with others.
Devise a Plan of Action Because none of the solutions will be completely satisfactory, the proposed course
of action needs to be examined to determine which actions or combination of actions takes into account the greatest number of important moral concerns. Highlight the courses of action that seem the best and delete the others. Your final plan of action can include a combination of some of the alternative courses of action, just in case your first plan doesn't work.
Carry out the Plan of Action Finally, as with any type of moral reasoning, you must be motivated to put the chosen plan of action into effect. Even the best-thought-out plan is useless if it's not carried out. Moral reasoning
that is unrelated to action or praxis becomes a mere academic exercise.
In working toward a resolution of a real-life moral dilemma keep in mind that human judgment is fallible. Not all facts can be known at the onset. For example, we may not know if a person in a coma wants heroic measures performed on him or her. In the decision about whether or not to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, for example, it was unclear whether she would have wanted it removed or even if she was brain-dead with no
hope of recovery.26
Nor can we accurately predict the consequences of all our actions, let alone the actions and choices of others. In addition, some of our premises or assumptions may later prove to be false, and new facts may come
to light. Thus, we can only do our best with the facts at hand. We also need to be pragmatic. Lofty moral solutions may seem ideal on paper but may not be practical or may meet with too much resistance. Thus, we need to ask ourselves which course of action is most likely to work given the particular circumstances.
Exercises
1. Think of a time when a decision you made, or failed to make, resulted in a moral tragedy. How might you have avoided that moral tragedy? Discuss how knowing how to break down and construct arguments may have been helpful to you in making better moral decisions in your life. Be specific.
Choose one or more of the following real-life dilemmas and resolve it using the method outlined in the previous section.
a. On May 19, 1894, the yacht Mignonette sailed from England for Sydney, Australia. There were four persons aboard: Dudley, the captain; Stephens, the mate; Brooks, a seaman; and Parker, a seventeen- year-old cabin boy and apprentice seaman. The yacht capsized in the South Atlantic during a storm, but the crew managed to put out in a thirteen-foot lifeboat. They drifted for twenty days in the open boat. During this time, they had no fresh water except rainwater and, for the last twelve days, no food. They were weak and facing starvation. The captain called them together to make a decision about their fate. What should they do?
b. Prosenjit Poddar, a student at the University of California, Berkeley, fell in love with a fellow student, Tatiana Tarasoff, whom he met at folk dancing classes. When Tatiana rejected him, he fell into a deep depression. He decided to seek treatment at the Cowell Memorial Hospital, which was affiliated with the university. During his course of treatment, he confided to a hospital psychologist, Dr. Moore,
2.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 43/44
Page 70
that he was going to kill a girl after she returned from spending the summer in Brazil. Although he didn't name the girl, it was clear that he was referring to Tatiana. What should Dr. Moore do?
c. You live in the Arctic. Every fall and spring, you need to move camp to find enough food. Winter is coming, and it is time to move camp and head south with your family. Your family consists of your spouse, your three children (ages six to twelve), and your aged father. Your father, who was once a proud seal hunter, is now blind and in poor health. The journey would be very hard on him, and he may not survive it. Also, he would slow down the progress of the group, and it is likely that you would not be able to reach your winter camp in time to avoid the first winter storms and starvation. What should you do? (For more on this particular case, see pages 167–168.)
d. You are a member of the National Guard and have been told to evacuate people from an area that is predicted to be hit by a potentially devastating hurricane. You approach a family with three young children living in a high-risk area. The parents refuse to evacuate, saying that they rode out the last hurricane and survived and plan to do the same this time. One of the children is frightened and wants to go with you. The parents say no, the family belongs together. What should you do?
e. * You are answering a hotline for the local women's resource center as part of a community service project. An eighteen-year-old high school junior calls and asks if she can get into a shelter. She tells you that she has run away from home because she is afraid her father will beat her when he finds out about her poor grades. She gives you permission to call her father and tell him she is okay, as long as you promise not to tell him where she is. As it happens, her father is head of the psychology department at your university, and you need a recommendation from him to get into graduate school. What should you do?
* Choose an unresolved moral dilemma from your personal life or from your community service. Using the method outlined in this chapter, find a solution to your dilemma. Carry out your proposed solution. Report on the results of your decision.
A Final Word
Between us and the universe there are no “rules of the game.” The important thing is that our judgments should be
right, not that they should observe a logical etiquette.
—WILLIAM JAMES (1842–1910)
Logic or moral reasoning is a tool rather than an end in itself. Moral reasoning is only one of the components of
moral development. Moral sentiments like sympathy and intuitive truths are also important for ethical decision making. Indeed, just as a person who is deficient in moral reasoning can make decisions that he or she later comes to regret, so too can people who are rational but lack sympathy inadvertently behave in cruel and unfeeling ways.
Summary
3.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9/25/2016 University of Phoenix: Ethics For Life
https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259975339/cfi/6/18! /4/4@0:0 44/44
Page 71
1. The thinking process used in moral reasoning can be divided into three levels. The first level is experience. The second level involves interpretation of these experiences. The third level of the thinking process is analysis of the interpretations. Analysis includes logical reasoning as well as examination of these
interpretations in light of moral intuitions and sentiments, consciousness raising, and collective insights. 2. Sheila Mullett outlines three dimensions in the process of ethical analysis. The first is the development of
moral sensitivity through collective consciousness raising. The second dimension is ontological shock, or awareness of the pain and injustice in the world. The third dimension is praxis, or informed social action.
3. Resistance is a type of immature defense mechanism that acts as a barrier to critical analysis of our interpretations of the world. Ignorance, avoidance, anger, conformity, and the use of clichés or distractions are all examples of resistance.
4. Descriptive statements are about what is. Prescriptive statements are about what ought to be. Moral
statements are prescriptive. 5. Doublethink involves simultaneously holding two contradictory views and believing both to be true. 6. A moral tragedy occurs when we fail to take appropriate moral action or when we make a moral
decision that we later regret.
An argument is made up of propositions. Propositions are statements that express a complete thought. They can be either true or false. The conclusion in an argument is a proposition that is supported by one or more propositions known as premises. In an argument, we move from the premises to the conclusion by the use of inference.
8. Premise indicators are words such as because and since that signal a premise follows. Conclusion indicators are words such as therefore and thus that signal a conclusion follows. Not all arguments contain indicators.
9. When constructing arguments in moral discourse, we first create a list of premises and from there move to our conclusion.
10. Rhetoric involves the use of persuasion to get others to accept our position. 11. A fallacy is a type of argument that is psychologically persuasive but incorrect. Many different types of
fallacies can occur within a moral argument. (See page 62). 12. A moral dilemma is a situation with conflicting moral values. In resolving a moral dilemma, we should (1)
describe the facts, (2) list the relevant moral principles and sentiments, (3) make a list of possible courses of action, (4) come up with a plan of action, and (5) carry out the chosen plan of action.
13. Logic or moral reasoning is a tool and only one aspect of morality.
*The video “Obedience” is available on the Milgram experiment.
*An asterisk indicates that the exercise is appropriate for students who are doing community service learning as part of the course.
i The National Alliance to End Homelessness, “The State of Homelessness in America 2012”.
7.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
