Evaluating Moral Arguments A simple argument consists of a list of premises and a conclusion Statement a sentence that can be either true or false Argument consists of one or more statements intended to give reasons for believing another statement Premises supporting statements Indicators of a premise in view of the fact that because due to the fact that assuming that since for given that etc Conclusion the supported statement A good argument 1 has good logical form 2 has true premises Deductive arguments Intended to be valid if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true and vice versa The counter example method Try to imagine a possible case in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false If you can imagine a case the argument is invalid Another counter example method Try to create a parallel argument that has exactly the same form as the argument in question but which has true premises and a false conclusion If you can create a parallel argument the original argument is invalid A good deductive argument is sound 1 it is valid 2 it has true premises Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent Hypothetical syllogism If p then q p Therefore q If p then q Not q Therefore not p If p then q q Therefore p If p then q Not p Therefore not q If p then q If q then r p Therefore r Inductive arguments Intended to be strong if the premises are true the conclusion is probably true A good inductive argument is cogent 1 it is strong 2 is has true premises When you evaluate an argument explicitly state and implied premises when the implied premise 1 is necessary to make the argument valid or strong 2 is not common sense Moral statement a statement claiming that an action or omission os right or wrong or that person or her motive is good or bad The conclusion is a moral statement At least one premise is a moral statement often a general rule of moral principle At least one premise is a Nonmoral statement about some state of affairs You can test a moral premise by thinking of a counterexample Nonmoral statement claims that something is true or false but does not make any moral value claims To check the truth of Nonmoral premises we use either empirical or conceptual methods Empirical claims can be confirmed by sense experience Conceptual claims can be confirmed by conceptual analysis o When evaluating Nonmoral premises use reliable sources o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Fallacies Fallacies are common mistakes in reasoning Equivocation happens when the same term is used in two different ways in an argument A feather is light o o What is light cannot be dark o Therefore a feather cannot be dark Appeal to faulty authority an illegitimate appeal to authority when you rely on the opinions of people who aren t really experts in the field or who are experts in an unrelated field Slippery slope using dubious premises to argue that some action will inevitably lead to other actions that will result in disaster so you shouldn t do the first action o Tuition is expensive Pretty soon they ll be charging 40 000 dollars a term Begging the question using a statement as both a premise and a conclusion in an argument or implicitly assuming the conclusion in the premises o o o o o Bill God must exist Jill How do you know Bill Because the Bible says so Jill Why should I believe the Bible Bill Because the Bible was written by God Faulty analogy analogies must have relevant similarities to the conclusion and the similarities must be of high degree People who have to have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no less a problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them Appeal to ignorance claim that the absence of some evidence entitles one to believe some claim absence of evidence only means we need to look for more evidence You can t prove that there aren t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars so it is reasonable for me to believe there are Straw man caricature of someone s position that can easily be refuted Sunny days are good If all days were sunny we d never have rain and without rain we d have famine and death Ad hominem claim that some claim should be rejected because of the characteristics of the person who makes the claim How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak o o o o o Hasty generalization bad inductions Sample S which is too small is taken from population P o Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S Subjectivism Relativism and Emotivism Moral objectivism says that there are universal moral standards that are true for everyone For this class we will assume that moral objectivism is true Moral absolutism says that moral principles apply without exceptions in all cases regardless of circumstances Moral relativism says that moral standards are relative to what individuals or cultures believe or approve of Others believe that moral principles are prima facie applicable unless exceptions are warranted Subjective relativism holds that the individual is the arbiter of rightness Problems with subjective relativism It implies individuals are morally infallible It entail an implausible moral equivalence It implies that moral disagreement is heavily impossible o Cultural relativism holds that a culture is the arbiter or rightness Problems with cultural relativism It implies that cultures are morally infallible It implies that no culture can legitimately criticize another culture It implies that there is no moral progress It means all social reformers are always wrong Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false instead they are merely expressions of emotions of attitudes o o Emotivists think that moral statements just express one s attitudes Moral disagreements for Emotivists are just disagreements in attitudes not conflicts of beliefs Problems with emotivism It implies that there are no moral disagreements It implies that a good reason is any Nonmoral fact that can alter someone s attitude It implies that there is no such thing as goodness or badness Divine Command Theory Moral concerns certain types of norms Moral norms are universal impartial dominating and supported by reason Some people think that we don t need to critically reason about morality because God or religion tells us all we need to know However o o o We need some shared standard for people of different religions to discuss morality It is unclear how some
View Full Document
Unlocking...