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 statementso 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 argumentso Intended to be valid – if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true and vice versao 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. o 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.o A good deductive argument is sound – (1) it is valid, (2) it has true premisesModus Ponens If p, then q.p.Therefore, q.Modus Tollens If p, then q.Not q.Therefore, not p.Affirming the consequent If p, then q.q.Therefore, p.Denying the antecedent If p, then q.Not p.Therefore, not q.Hypothetical syllogism If p, then q.If q, then r.p.Therefore, r.- Inductive argumentso Intended to be strong – if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably trueo 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 bado The conclusion is a moral statemento At least one premise is a moral statement (often a general rule of moral principle)o At least one premise is a Nonmoral statement about some state of affairso 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 claimso 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 analysiso When evaluating Nonmoral premises, use reliable sourcesFallacies- Fallacies are common mistakes in reasoning- Equivocation – happens when the same term is used in two different ways in an argumento A feather is light.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 actiono “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 premiseso Bill: "God must exist." o Jill: "How do you know." o Bill: "Because the Bible says so." o Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" o 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 degreeo 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 evidenceo “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 refutedo Sunny days are good.o 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 claimo “How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak?”- Hasty generalization – bad inductions o 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 everyoneo 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- Others believe that moral principles are prima facie – applicable unless exceptions are warranted- Moral relativism says that moral standards are relative to what individuals or cultures believe or approve of o 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 impossibleo 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 Emotivists think that moral statements just express one’s attitudes. Moral disagreements for Emotivists are just disagreements in attitudes, not conflicts of beliefs.o 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 badnessDivine Command Theory- Moral concerns certain types of norms- Moral norms are universal, impartial, dominating, and
View Full Document
Unlocking...