Moral Reasoning and Applied Ethics

Moral Reasoning

This lecture discusses moral reasoning, focusing on moral theories and arguments used in applied ethics.

Moral Theories

Moral theories are conceptual frameworks that determine when and why an action is right or wrong. They can be grouped into consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethical theories.

Consequentialism
  • The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its consequences.
  • Actions are evaluated based on the amount of net pleasure (pleasure minus pain) they produce compared to alternatives.
  • Slogan: Morally right actions maximize the good.
  • Counterexample: The organ transplant scenario. If five patients need organ transplants to survive and a healthy patient walks in with all the needed organs, consequentialism might imply it is morally required to kill the healthy patient to save the five. This highlights a potential conflict with common moral intuitions.
Deontology
  • Deontologists believe in moral duties and rules (e.g., it is wrong to lie).
  • An action is right if it conforms to these moral rules and wrong if it doesn't.
  • An action's conformity with a moral norm makes it right.
  • Kant's theory: Act only according to motivations that could become a universal law.
  • Example: Riding the Metrolink without a ticket. If everyone evaded payment, the system would collapse. Kantian deontology deems riding without a ticket as wrong.
  • Universally binding moral rules?: Are there truly universally binding moral rules? (Ex: Murderer at the door)
Virtue Ethics
  • An action is right if it promotes good character and wrong if it does the opposite.
  • Considers what a virtuous person would do.
  • Examples of virtues: charity, honesty, kindness, integrity, humility, courage, etc.
  • Application challenges: How to apply virtues and resolve conflicts between them?

Moral Theory and Applied Ethics

  • A common approach to applied ethics is to apply the best moral theory to solve ethical problems.
  • This top-down strategy avoids pre-theoretic moral reasoning, which relies on common sense and intuitions.
  • Advantages of Moral Theory: Offers greater guidance and systematicity.
  • Problems with Pre-Theoretic Intuitions: Moral intuitions vary across individuals and cultures.
  • Challenges in Applying Moral Theories:
    • Philosophical disagreement on the correct moral theory.
    • Roughly equal support for deontology (32%), consequentialism (30%), and virtue ethics (37%) among professional philosophers (PhilPapers).
    • Difficulty in formulating a moral theory.
    • Uncertainty in applying a moral theory to concrete problems.

Principlism/Pluralism

  • Focuses on identifying moral principles that all moral philosophers can agree on (e.g., consequentialists, deontologists, virtue ethicists).
  • Emphasizes shared values across different theories.
  • Rather than prioritizing a single theory, approach moral debates using mid-level principles that garner widespread agreement.
Principles
  • Autonomy: The value of self-direction in life choices.
  • Beneficence: The value of enhancing the welfare of others.
  • Nonmaleficence: The value of avoiding harm to others.
  • Justice: The value of according each person her due or what she deserves.
  • Limitations: Principlism offers no specific guidance on how to apply or prioritize principles in particular situations.
  • Problems must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, having far- reaching, wide discussions with stakeholders and the like, in order to come up with solutions in any particular case. There is no assumed hierarchy when it comes to these basic moral principles.

Morality vs. The Law

  • Moral and legal permissibility differ.
  • Applied ethics often addresses issues debated in politics and law.
  • Moral permissibility/requirement can diverge from legal permissibility/requirement.
  • The course focuses on the moral status of actions, setting aside legal considerations.

Arguments

  • Arguments reason from premises to conclusions.
  • A premise supports the conclusion or thesis.
  • Two main types: deductive and inductive.
  • Good arguments follow logic.
Deductive Arguments
  • Deductive arguments prove their conclusions.
  • If premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
  • The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
  • Example:
    • All humans are mammals.
    • All mammals have hearts.
    • Therefore, all humans have hearts.
Modus Ponens

  • Form:

    • If P, then Q
    • P
    • Therefore, Q

  • Example:

    • If Alex is a human, then Alex is a mammal.
    • Alex is a human.
    • Therefore, Alex is a mammal.
Modus Tollens

  • Form:

    • If P, then Q
    • Not-Q
    • Therefore, not-P

  • Example:

    • If Alex is a human, then Alex is a mammal.
    • Alex is not a mammal.
    • Therefore, Alex is not a human.

  • Example:

    • If someone is in the yard, Lola will bark.
    • Lola is not barking.
    • Therefore, no one is in the yard.
Conditional Statements
  • Arguments often have a premise with the structure: "If P, then Q."
  • These (if–then statements) are conditional statements.
  • P is the antecedent, and Q is the consequent.
Fallacies

  • Affirming the Consequent (Bad!):

    • If P, then Q
    • Q
    • Therefore, P.
    • Example:
      • If Alex is a human, then Alex is a mammal.
      • Alex is a mammal.
      • Therefore, Alex is a human.

  • Denying the Antecedent (Bad!):

    • If P, then Q
    • Not-P
    • Therefore, Not-Q.
    • Example:
      • If someone is in the yard, Lola will bark.
      • No one is in the yard.
      • Therefore, Lola is not barking.
Inductive Arguments
  • Inductive arguments cannot prove their conclusions; they make them likely.
  • Premises of a strong inductive argument make the conclusion probable.
  • Example:
    • All the squirrels I see outside are grey.
    • Therefore, all squirrels are grey.
  • The truth of the premise only makes the conclusion likely.
  • It’s possible that there are non-grey squirrels unseen.
  • Example: Argument from analogy.

Truth Values

  • Philosophers discuss the truth value (truth or falsity) of claims or propositions.
  • Every claim has a truth value, even if hard to assess.
  • Examples:
    • All humans are mammals. (T)
    • All mammals have hearts. (T)
    • Therefore, all humans have hearts. (T)
    • All the squirrels I see outside are grey. (T)
    • Therefore, all squirrels are grey. (F)
  • Truth values help assess the validity and soundness of arguments.
  • Validity and soundness relate to the relationship between propositions.

Validity

  • An argument is valid when, if all its premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true.
  • The conclusion necessarily follows from true premises.
  • Validity is hypothetical and concerns the form of the argument, not the actual truth of the premises.
  • Example:
    • All humans are mammals. (T)
    • All mammals have wings. (F)
    • Therefore, all humans have wings. (F)

Soundness

  • Sound arguments are valid arguments with true premises and a true conclusion.
  • Criteria:
    • Valid.
    • Premises are true.
  • Sound Example:
    • All humans are mammals. (T)
    • All mammals have hearts. (T)
    • Therefore, all humans have hearts. (T)
  • Unsound Example:
    • All fish are mammals. (F)
    • All whales are fish. (F)
    • Therefore, all whales are mammals. (T)

Arguments in Applied Ethics

  • Example:
    • If placing limits on the accumulation of individual wealth violates people’s autonomy, then placing such limits is morally wrong.
    • Placing limits on the accumulation of individual wealth violates people’s autonomy.
    • Therefore, placing limits on the accumulation of individual wealth is morally wrong.

Next Time

  • Read Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion” (pp. 47–66), available on Canvas.
  • Optional: Read excerpt from Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.”