CHAPTER 3: Evaluating Moral Arguments

Critical Notes on Evaluating Moral Arguments (Chapter 3)

• Purpose of the chapter: introduce the basics of critical reasoning (formulation and evaluation of arguments) and apply these skills to ethics.
• Core aim of critical reasoning: determine whether to accept a statement as true, based on good reasons.
• A statement (claim) is an assertion that something is or is not the case; it can be true or false. Examples of statements:
  • The ship sailed on the wind-tossed sea.
  • I feel tired and listless.
  • Murder is wrong.
  • 5 + 5 = 10.
  • A circle is not a square.
• Non-statements: do not assert that something is or is not the case (e.g., questions or evaluative charges):
  • Why is Anna laughing?
  • Is abortion immoral?
• Ethics and moral reasoning: ethics (moral philosophy) matters; moral reasoning is ordinary critical reasoning applied to ethics.
• Definition of critical reasoning: careful, systematic evaluation of statements or claims.
• Scope of critical reasoning: used across contexts (personal, professional, academic, scientific, political, ethical).
• Moral reasoning is NOT a new kind of reasoning; it’s ordinary reasoning applied to moral claims.

The Basic Principle of Critical Reasoning

• Fundamental principle: we should not accept a statement as true without good reasons.
• If a statement is supported by good reasons, we are entitled to believe it; stronger reasons justify stronger belief.
• Strength of belief varies with strength of reasons; equivocal reasons require suspending judgment.
• Reasoning rests on premises that may cite scientific evidence, expert opinion, examples, or other considerations.
• An argument is a group of statements where at least one (the premise) supports another statement (the conclusion).
• Important distinction: an argument is not a shouting match or quarrel; it’s a reasoned case for a conclusion.
• Indicator: reasons support conclusions; premises support conclusions in arguments.

Claims, Arguments, and Premises

• Arguments have premises (supporting statements) and a conclusion (the statement being supported).
• Premises can be explicit or implicit; conclusions can be stated before or after premises.
• Examples introduced:
  • Argument 1: Capital punishment is morally permissible because it helps to deter crime.
  • Argument 2: If John killed Bill in self-defense, he did not commit murder. He did act in self-defense. Therefore, he did not commit murder.
  • Argument 3: Telling a white lie is morally permissible. We should judge the rightness of an act by its impact on human well-being. If an act increases well-being, it is right. Telling a white lie increases well-being, because it spares people’s feelings. Therefore, telling a white lie is morally permissible.
• Observations about arguments:
  • Arguments vary in the number of premises and the placement of premises/conclusion.
  • All arguments share the pattern: at least one premise supports a conclusion.
• Identifying arguments in prose: many passages are non-arguments (mere assertions or expressions of emotion).
  • Indicator words help: conclusion indicators (therefore, hence, thus, as a result) and premise indicators (since, for, given that, due to the fact that).
  • However, indicator words are not foolproof; sometimes they appear without an actual argument.
• Best method to identify an argument: locate the conclusion first, then identify premises that support it.
• Distinction: argumentation (presentation of an argument) vs persuasion (influencing belief by various means). A good argument aims to show why a claim is true; persuasion may rely on emotion or rhetoric.

Structure and Types of Arguments

• Two basic types of arguments:
  • Deductive arguments: intended to give logically conclusive support to the conclusion.
  • Inductive arguments: intended to offer probable support.
• Validity vs soundness (deductive):
  • Valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Form ensures truth of conclusion from true premises.
  • Invalid: even with true premises, conclusion may be false (the form does not guarantee truth).
  • Sound: valid argument with true premises.
• Strength vs cogency (inductive):
  • Strong: if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
  • Weak: premises do not provide probable support.
  • Cogent: strong argument with true premises.
• Important note: validity/invalidity is a matter of form; truth of the statements is separate from the logical form.

Common Argument Forms (Deductive)

• We can symbolize forms to identify validity quickly. Common valid forms include:
  • Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent):
  • If p
    ightarrow q, and p, then q. Form: If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. Always valid.
  • Symbolic form: (p
    ightarrow q),
    esset p herefore q.
  • Modus tollens (denying the consequent):
  • If p
    ightarrow q, and not q, then not p. Form: If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p. Always valid.
  • Symbolic form: (p
    ightarrow q),
    eg q herefore
    eg p.
  • Denying the antecedent (invalid):
  • If p
    ightarrow q, and not p, then not q. Invalid.
  • Symbolic form: (p
    ightarrow q),
    eg p herefore
    eg q.
  • Affirming the consequent (invalid):
  • If p
    ightarrow q, and q, then p. Invalid.
  • Symbolic form: (p
    ightarrow q), q herefore p.
  • Hypothetical syllogism (transitive, valid):
  • If p
    ightarrow q and q
    ightarrow r, then p
    ightarrow r.
  • Symbolic form: (p
    ightarrow q), (q
    ightarrow r) herefore p
    ightarrow r.
• Practical takeaway: memorize these forms to check validity quickly. If an argument matches a valid form with true premises, it’s good (for deductive validity).

Counterexample Method (Testing Validity)

• If an argument does not match common valid forms, you can test validity by counterexample:
  • Create a twin argument with the same form but with true premises and a false conclusion. If you can do this, the original argument is invalid.
  • Example discussion: If capital punishment deters crime, then death row inmates decrease. Capital punishment does not deter crime. Therefore, death row inmates will not decrease. This resembles a denying the antecedent issue when tested; it can be shown invalid by a counterexample.
• Key idea: a valid deductive argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Implicit Premises and Unstated Premises

• Real-world arguments often include implicit premises (premises not stated but assumed).
• In moral arguments, implicit premises are frequently the most controversial and require scrutiny.
• Examples: condom-use argument where a premise like “Anything that interferes with a natural process should not be allowed” makes the argument valid; but the implicit premise is controversial and questionable.
• Guidelines for handling implicit premises:
  • Explicitly state implied premises when there’s a logical gap between premises and conclusion, and the missing material is not common sense.
  • The supplied premise should make the argument valid (deductive) or strong (inductive) and be plausible and fitting.
  • Be fair and honest when supplying premises; avoid distorting author’s intent or making premises ridiculous.
• Some arguments are irredeemably bad; supplying premises cannot save them without changing their nature or intent.

Deconstructing Arguments: Diagramming

• In practice, arguments are embedded in prose; diagramming helps reveal structure.
• Steps:
  1) Identify all statements; underline premises/conclusions; count each sentence in compounds as separate statements.
  2) Find the conclusion(s) and underline; label premises.
  3) Diagram the relations: draw arrows from premises to conclusions to show support.
  4) Distinguish independent premises (support directly) vs dependent premises (require support from others); sometimes premises are combined (plus sign) when they jointly support a conclusion.
• Example: Diagram of a passage arguing about just war theory in Iraq (14 statements initially; 7,8,11,12,13,14 form the core premises and conclusion). After removing irrelevant background, the central chain shows how premises 7+8 and 11+12+13 support the main conclusion 14, with some premises directly supporting and others indirectly via dependencies.

Moral Statements, Moral Arguments, and Structure

• Moral arguments are arguments whose conclusion is a moral statement (right/wrong, good/bad).
• Moral statements examples: "Capital punishment is wrong.", "Jena should not have lied.", "You ought to treat him as he treated you.", "Tania is a good person.", "Cruelty to animals is immoral."
• Nonmoral statements describe states of affairs or make normative judgments that are not moral statements (e.g., "This is a good library.") or describe actions without moral valence.
• A typical moral argument contains:
  • At least one moral premise (a general moral principle or standard).
  • At least one nonmoral premise (about a state of affairs, a specific action, etc.).
  • A conclusion that is a moral judgment.
• Example analyzed:
  • Premise 1: Committing a violent act to defend yourself against physical attack is morally permissible. (moral premise)
  • Premise 2: Assaulting someone who is attacking you is a violent act of self-defense. (nonmoral premise about a particular action)
  • Conclusion: Therefore, assaulting a person who is attacking you is morally permissible. (moral conclusion)
• Why a nonmoral premise is needed: cannot infer a moral conclusion from a merely descriptive premise; a linking nonmoral premise is required to connect a general moral principle to a specific case.
• Unstated premises in moral arguments are common and often crucial; make them explicit to assess the argument properly.
• Approach: treat moral arguments as deductive to uncover implicit premises and evaluate the overall validity and soundness.

Testing and Evaluating Moral Premises

• Testing moral premises with counterexamples is a core method:
  • For universal generalizations (e.g., "All dogs have tails"), search for counterexamples (a tailless dog).
  • For moral premises in a universal generalization (e.g., a universal claim about a class of actions), look for counterexamples and adjust premises or conclusions to address them.
• Example: a valid moral argument about killing in self-defense can be scrutinized for counterexamples (e.g., war, self-defense vs. killing in other contexts).
• Sometimes you revise premises to try to make the argument more robust (e.g., changing a moral principle to avoid counterexamples like self-defense or killing to save lives).
• If you can make an argument valid and the premises plausible/fitting, you have a more solid argument to evaluate for truth of premises.
• The ultimate goal is logical consistency among all moral beliefs; consider how moral premises relate to other beliefs and theories.

Assessing Nonmoral Premises

• Nonmoral premises (about facts, consequences, etc.) must be supported by good reasons:
  • Use reliable sources (experts, data, studies).
  • Double-check information from advocacy groups with reliable sources; beware bias.
  • Weigh conflicting evidence; let reason rule; be fair and thorough in examining evidence on all sides.
• Guidelines for evaluating nonmoral premises:
  1) Use reliable sources; doubt if data is false, outdated, or from biased sources.
  2) Beware conflicts between evidence; weigh evidence for each claim.
  3) Let reason guide; avoid letting emotions or biases drive conclusions; consider both supporting and opposing evidence.
• The aim: ensure moral beliefs are logically consistent and well-supported by evidence.

Avoiding Bad Arguments: Fallacies (especially in moral argumentation)

• Fallacies are common, persuasive but logically flawed patterns. Key fallacies covered:
  • Begging the Question (circular reasoning): premise and conclusion restate the same claim. Example: "Women in Muslim countries have a right to vote because women in Muslim countries have a right to vote."
  • Equivocation: two meanings of the same term are used in different premises (e.g., “human” means different things in Premise 1 vs Premise 2).
  • Appeal to Authority: relying on the opinion of someone not an expert in the field; beware consensus and cross-field expertise; disagreements among experts warrant doubt.
  • Emotions (appeal to emotion): using fear, pity, anger, etc., instead of reasons.
  • Slippery Slope: arguing first step will inevitably lead to disaster; premises may be weak or missing moral premises.
  • Faulty Analogy: weak or irrelevant similarities between two cases used to infer a conclusion.
  • Appeal to Ignorance: arguing that absence of evidence proves a claim or its negation.
  • Straw Man: misrepresenting an opponent’s claim to refute a weaker version.
  • Ad Hominem (appeal to the person): dismissing a claim because of the person who makes it, not the claim itself.
  • Hasty Generalization: drawing a general conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.
• How to use this knowledge:
  • Learn these fallacies to avoid them in your own arguments.
  • Be able to recognize them in others’ arguments and respond by pointing out the logical misstep.

Writing and Speaking About Moral Issues

• Essentials for productive moral discourse: 1) A clear claim to be proved (the central moral claim or judgment).
  • In an essay, the claim should be explicit early (first one or two paragraphs); in conversation, stated or understood at the start.
  • Explain why the claim matters and how it affects people’s lives to justify addressing the issue.
    2) An argument for or against the claim (the moral argument): present and explain each premise, with evidence (expert opinion, studies, statistics, examples, analogies).
  • Show how the conclusion follows from the premises.
  • Provide thoughtful responses to objections.
    3) Consideration of alternative views: present objections and respond to them fairly.
  • Avoid straw man fallacies; ensure fair representation of opposing views.
  • Mutual respect and fair debate are essential; avoid turning discourse into a contest or shouting match.
• Writing an essay vs conducting a debate: both should include the same core elements—claim, argument, objections, and responses.

Chapter Review Summary (Key Takeaways)

• An argument is a group of statements: one or more premises and a conclusion.
• A good argument has true premises and a conclusion that follows from those premises; a bad argument fails in either respect.
• Deductive arguments aim for logical conclusive support (valid or sound).
• Inductive arguments aim for probable support (strong or cogent).
• Common argument forms help identify validity quickly (e.g., Modus ponens, Modus tollens, Hypothetical syllogism).
• Implicit premises are often crucial in moral arguments; make them explicit to assess the argument fairly.
• Moral arguments combine moral premises with nonmoral premises; assess both types of premises for truth and relevance.
• Counterexamples are a key tool for testing moral premises and for testing generalizations.
• Diagrams help visualize how premises support conclusions and reveal dependencies among premises.
• Fallacies are common in moral argumentation; recognizing them helps improve clarity and fairness.
• Reliable critical thinking requires:
  • Using credible sources; weighing evidence fairly.
  • Asking questions like: What premises are implied? Are they plausible? Does the conclusion fairly follow?

Quick Reference: Key Terms (glossary-style)

• statement: An assertion that something is or is not the case; can be true or false.
• argument: A group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest.
• premise: A supporting statement in an argument.
• conclusion: The statement that premises are supposed to support.
• indicator words: Terms signaling premises or conclusions or the nature of the argument (deductive vs inductive).
• deductive argument: An argument intended to give logically conclusive support.
• inductive argument: An argument intended to offer probable support.
• valid argument: A deductive argument whose premises, if true, guarantee the conclusion.
• invalid argument: A deductive argument whose form does not guarantee the conclusion.
• strong argument: An inductive argument that, if premises are true, makes the conclusion probably true.
• weak argument: An inductive argument that fails to make the conclusion probable.
• sound argument: A valid argument with true premises.
• cogent argument: A strong inductive argument with true premises.
• moral statement: A statement about right/wrong, good/bad in actions, motives, or character.
• nonmoral statement: A statement about facts or states of affairs that do not assign moral value.
• premises (moral/nonmoral): Can be a mix of moral principles and factual or nonmoral observations.
• counterexample method: Testing a claim by constructing a situation in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false.
• prima facie: At first sight; a reason to doubt a premise when it conflicts with other credible claims.
• diagramming: Visual representation of how premises support conclusions; used to reveal logical structure.
• fallacy: A common, flawed argumentative pattern; many fallacies are persuasive but invalid.

Exercises (Selected Reflections and Practice)

• Review Questions (from end of chapter):
  1) Are all persuasive arguments valid? Recount a time you tried to persuade someone using an argument. (p. 44)
  2) Can a valid deductive argument have false premises? Why or why not? (p. 44)
  3) Are the premises of a cogent argument always true? Is the conclusion always true? Explain. (p. 45)
  4) What term designates a valid argument with true premises? a strong argument with true premises? (p. 45)
  5) Is the following argument form valid or invalid? Why? If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. (p. 45)
  6) Is the following argument form valid or invalid? Why? If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if p, then r. (p. 46)
  7) What is the counterexample method? (p. 47)
  8) What kinds of premises must a moral argument have? (p. 57)
  9) What is the best method for evaluating moral premises? (pp. 54–55)
  10) Explain the method for locating implied premises. (pp. 47–48)
• Discussion Questions:
  1) Is it immoral to believe a claim without evidence? Why or why not?
  2) If moral reasoning is about providing reasons, where do feelings enter? Can you present a good argument about a view you feel strongly about? Give an example.
  3) Identify which passages are arguments; explain your answers. (Examples include harm leading to harm; racial profiling; restricting speech.)
  4) Difference between persuading and giving reasons; can a good argument be persuasive? Why or why not?
  5) Why do people use straw man fallacies in moral disagreements? How does it feel to be targeted by one?
• Argument Exercises (select): *1. If John works out daily, he will be healthier. He is working out daily. Therefore, he will be healthier. *2. If in a coma you are not a person, giving you a drug to kill you would not be murder. In a coma, you are not a person. Therefore, giving you the drug is not murder. *3. Ghosts do not exist. There is no reliable evidence showing that any disembodied persons exist anywhere. (illustrates a non sequitur risk) *4. If you smoke, your heart will be damaged, increasing death risk. Therefore, smoking increases death risk. *5. The mayor is soft on crime; he cut back enforcement and told police to be lenient with traffic violators. (illustrates how details can mislead)
  6. Death is nothing to us; deprivation of sensation means death is nothing. (philosophical paraphrase leading to a conclusion)
  7. The president is either dishonest or incompetent; evidence suggests dishonesty. (a disjunction-based inference)
  8. Most Republicans are conservatives; Kurt is a Republican; therefore Kurt is probably conservative and opposed to welfare increases. (illustrates probabilistic inference)
     *9. Can people without strong religious beliefs be moral? Counterexamples from secular/moral philosophies.
  9. Jan is a student at Harvard; claim “No Harvard student has won a Pulitzer.” Therefore, Jan has not won a Pulitzer. (generalization fallacy)
     *11. We shouldn’t pay the lawnmower guy much because he never completes work and gambles money away. (ad hominem style or reliability concern)
  10. Car crash logical deduction: Manny, Mo, or Jack—eliminating impossible options; deducing the only remaining person. (case of reasoning)
• Further Reading (optional): Feldman, Fox & DeMarco, Moore & Parker, Vaughn.

Real-World Relevance and Ethical Implications

• Critical reasoning is essential for ethical discourse, policy analysis, and everyday decision-making.
• Evaluating arguments helps prevent manipulation by emotion, propaganda, or biased sources.
• Recognizing implicit premises is crucial in moral debates where controversial assumptions often underpin conclusions.
• The balance between reason and emotions: emotions can inform values but should not replace evidence-based premises.
• Ethical implications of reasoning: the ethics of belief (W. K. Clifford) emphasizes the obligation to avoid holding beliefs without sufficient reasons; prompts reflection on epistemic responsibility.

Notation Cheat Sheet (quick reference)

• Premise → Premise → … → Conclusion structure
• Symbolic forms to memorize:
  • Modus ponens: (p
    ightarrow q),
    esset p herefore q
  • Modus tollens: (p
    ightarrow q),
    eg q herefore
    eg p
  • Denying the antecedent: (p
    ightarrow q),
    eg p herefore
    eg q ext{ (invalid)}
  • Affirming the consequent: (p
    ightarrow q), q herefore p ext{ (invalid)}
  • Hypothetical syllogism: (p
    ightarrow q), (q
    ightarrow r) herefore p
    ightarrow r
• Key terms: statement, argument, premise, conclusion, indicator words, deductive, inductive, valid, invalid, strong, weak, sound, cogent, moral statement, nonmoral statement, implicit premise, counterexample, diagramming, fallacy.

Note

• The content reflects the chapter’s emphasis on distinguishing arguments from non-arguments, identifying premises (explicit or implicit), and evaluating both moral and nonmoral premises with an emphasis on avoiding fallacies and employing clear, evidence-based reasoning.