Evaluating Moral Arguments (Chapter 3) - Study Notes
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATING MORAL ARGUMENTS
The main goal of moral reasoning is to apply careful thinking to ethical questions. This means figuring out what is right or wrong, good or bad, and what actions show good or bad character. We try to separate conclusions based on logic from personal feelings.
Basics of careful thinking:
Critical thinking means carefully looking at statements or claims.
Moral reasoning is using this careful thinking for ethical claims.
We rely on reasons and arguments, even though our feelings, desires, and beliefs play a part. The quality of our thinking determines the soundness of our ethical judgments.
CLAIMS AND ARGUMENTS
A statement (or claim) is something you say that can be true or false. It asserts that something is or isn't so.
Examples of statements:
The boat sailed on the choppy sea.
I feel tired.
Killing innocent people is wrong.
5+5=10.
A circle is not a square.
Things that are not statements include questions, commands, or requests.
Examples: Why is Anna laughing? Is abortion morally right? Give me the remote. Don't talk to me.
A basic rule of critical thinking is that we should only believe a statement if we have good reasons for it.
Strong reasons lead to a strong belief; weak reasons lead to a weaker belief. If reasons are unclear, we should hold back from judging.
An argument is a collection of statements where one or more statements (called premises) are meant to support another statement (called the conclusion).
Premises are the supporting statements.
The conclusion is the main point being argued for.
Arguments can have different structures: varying numbers of premises, conclusions placed at the beginning, middle, or end, and different ways of wording.
Indicator words often point out premises or conclusions, but they aren't always perfect clues.
Words that often signal a conclusion: therefore, so, as a result, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, it must be that.
Words that often signal a premise: since, because, for, given that, due to the fact that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by.
Always try to find the conclusion first to understand the argument.
It's important to tell the difference between an argument and persuasion. An argument gives logical reasons to believe something, while persuasion might try to convince you using emotions, fancy words, or tricks, without offering solid reasons.
ARGUMENTS GOOD AND BAD
A good argument provides strong reasons to accept its conclusion. A bad argument fails to do this.
In philosophy, some believe that good reasoning itself is a moral duty (for example, Clifford thought it was wrong to believe something without enough evidence).
Two main types of arguments:
Deductive arguments: These try to prove their conclusion with absolute certainty. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Inductive arguments: These try to show that their conclusion is likely to be true, but not absolutely certain.
Examples showing different argument styles:
Argument 1 (deductive, one premise): Capital punishment is morally acceptable because it helps reduce crime.
Argument 2 (deductive, two premises): If John killed Bill in self-defense, he didn't commit murder; John did act in self-defense; therefore, he didn't commit murder.
Argument 3 (inductive): We should judge if an act is right by how it impacts people's well-being. If an act increases well-being, it's right. White lies increase well-being by avoiding hurt feelings. Therefore, telling a white lie is probably morally acceptable.
Deductive validity vs. truth of premises:
Validity is about the argument's structure, not whether the statements are actually true. The premises themselves can be true or false.
If the premises were true, and the argument's form guarantees the conclusion, then the argument is valid.
If a deductive argument is valid and all its premises are true, then it is sound.
Inductive strength is about how probable the conclusion is: an argument is strong or weak. If a strong inductive argument also has true premises, it is called cogent.
How to spot arguments and their types:
Common deductive forms: These include Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Denying the Antecedent, Affirming the Consequent, and Hypothetical Syllogism.
Counterexample method: To check if a deductive argument is valid, you can try to create a similar argument with the same structure where the premises are clearly true but the conclusion is clearly false. If you can do this, the original argument form is invalid.
IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENT FORMS
Sometimes the conclusion comes first, other times the premises do.
Example form:
If Maria walks to work, then she will be late. She is walking to work. Therefore, she will be late.
Structure: If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. (Here, p stands for "Maria walks to work" and q stands for "She will be late.")
This specific type of conditional argument is called Modus Ponens and is considered valid.
Denying the Antecedent (Invalid form):
If p, then q. Not p. Therefore, not q. (This structure is actually incorrect and makes the argument invalid.)
Affirming the Consequent (Invalid form):
If p, then q. q. Therefore, p. (This structure is also incorrect and makes the argument invalid.)
Common valid and invalid argument structures:
Modus Ponens (valid - affirms the first part):
(p \to q), p \text{, therefore } q
Modus Tollens (valid - denies the second part):
(p \to q), \neg q \text{, therefore } \neg p
Denying the Antecedent (invalid):
(p \to q), \neg p \text{, therefore } \neg q
Affirming the Consequent (invalid):
(p \to q), q \text{, therefore } p
Hypothetical Syllogism (valid):
(p \to q), (q \to r) \text{, therefore } (p \to r)
Testing validity with counterexamples:
Example argument: If capital punishment stops crime, then the number of death row inmates will decrease over time. Capital punishment does not stop crime. Therefore, the number of death row inmates will not decrease over time. (This has the invalid form of denying the antecedent).
"Twin argument" method: To show an argument is invalid, you can create a new argument with the exact same questionable structure. In this new argument, make sure the premises are clearly true, but the conclusion is clearly false. If you can do this, the original argument's form is invalid.
SYMBOLIZING AND FORM
Using symbols helps us clearly see the structure of an argument.
Example: If Maria walks to work, then she will be late. She is walking to work. Therefore, she will be late.
Symbolic form:
Premise 1: If p, then q.
Premise 2: p.
Conclusion: q.
Learning these standard deductive argument forms by heart is helpful because recognizing them allows you to quickly determine if an argument is valid or not.
IMPLICIT OR IMPLIED PREMISES
Many everyday arguments don't state all their premises. These unspoken (implicit) premises are often the most debatable parts and need to be clearly stated to properly evaluate the argument.
Condom argument example:
Stated premises: "Using condoms is completely unnatural. They are made specifically to interfere with natural reproduction."
Conclusion: Therefore, condoms should be banned.
Hidden (implied) premise: To make the argument logically flow, an unstated premise is needed: "Anything that interferes with a natural process should not be allowed."
Important guidelines for finding implied premises:
If there's a logical jump in an argument and the missing information isn't obvious common knowledge, assume an unstated premise is there to make the argument make sense (deductively valid or inductively strong).
The implied premise you add should seem reasonable, fit the argument's context, and help make the argument valid or strong.
When you're trying to improve an argument by adding premises, make sure you're fair and don't change what the original person intended to say.
An argument might be logically flawed because it's missing a key logical connection. By adding an implicit premise, you can reveal the argument's structure and where its weakness might be.
Example progression: Consider capital punishment, whether it stops crime, and its morality. The implied premises would be the linking ideas that connect these aspects (e.g., "If something deters crime, it is morally permissible").
TESTING MORAL PREMISES
Moral premises are often general moral rules (like "causing a person's death is wrong"). We test these using counterexamples, because we can't use scientific studies like we would for factual statements.
Counterexamples are specific cases that challenge a general moral rule, showing if it truly holds true in all relevant situations.
Example of evaluating a moral argument:
Causing a person's death is wrong. (This is the moral rule/premise)
People in a deep, irreversible coma can't act for themselves. (This is a factual/nonmoral premise)
Stopping life support for someone in a deep, irreversible coma causes that person to die. (This is a factual/nonmoral premise)
Therefore, stopping life support for someone in a deep, irreversible coma is wrong. (This is the conclusion)
Counterexamples challenge premise 1: Is it always wrong to cause death? What about dying to save many lives, or in self-defense, or during war? These exceptions suggest the original premise might be too broad.
Revised premises to address counterexamples (and make the argument more convincing):
1. Causing the death of someone who is incapacitated is wrong, unless it's to save other lives.
2. Individuals in a deep, irreversible coma are considered persons.
3. Stopping life support for someone in a deep, irreversible coma means causing an incapacitated person to die.
4. Therefore, stopping life support is wrong, unless it's to save other lives.
This process shows how using counterexamples can help us refine our moral rules. We connect them to specific situations and acknowledge when exceptions are reasonable.
When evaluating a moral premise, consider:
If there are any counterexamples that contradict it.
How well it fits with other moral judgments we already hold.
If it conflicts with other moral rules or theories.
ASSESSING NONMORAL PREMISES
Nonmoral premises are statements about facts in the real world. These can include consequences of actions, characteristics of people, or scientific claims.
Even if people agree on the moral rules, they often disagree on these factual (nonmoral) premises.
How to evaluate nonmoral premises:
Use reliable scientific studies, trustworthy experts, relevant examples, historical facts, or generally accepted knowledge.
Don't just trust advocacy groups without checking their information; always look for credible sources and multiple confirmations.
If different pieces of evidence contradict each other, carefully weigh all sides. Don't just pick the evidence that supports what you already want to believe.
Let logic guide your thinking. Be aware of your own biases (like confirmation bias, where you only look for evidence that proves you right). Try to fairly consider all relevant evidence.
Quick tips:
Use trustworthy sources and check the qualifications of any experts.
If evidence is conflicting, re-examine both the premises and the overall argument.
Let reason lead: look at all relevant evidence, including evidence that goes against your view, to find the most accurate conclusion.
AVOIDING BAD ARGUMENTS (FALLACIES)
Fallacies are common, misleading ways of arguing that seem convincing but actually weaken good reasoning.
Key fallacies in moral arguments:
Begging the Question: Arguing in a circle, where you assume your conclusion is true in your premises.
Example: Women in Muslim countries have a right to vote; therefore, all women in Muslim countries have the right to vote. (The premise and conclusion are essentially the same statement.)
Equivocation: Using the same word with two different meanings within the same argument.
Example: Using "individual" to mean a biological entity in one part of an argument about a fetus, and then "individual" to mean a person with full legal rights in another part.
Appeal to Authority: Relying on someone as an expert who isn't actually an expert on the specific topic, or when qualified experts disagree.
Appeal to Emotion: Trying to win an argument by using strong feelings (like fear, guilt, or anger) instead of providing logical reasons.
Slippery Slope: Claiming that one action will definitely lead to a series of increasingly bad consequences, without solid proof that this chain of events will actually happen.
Faulty Analogy: Comparing two things that are not very similar in relevant ways, so the comparison doesn't actually support the argument's conclusion.
Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing that because something hasn't been proven false, it must be true (or vice-versa, because it hasn't been proven true, it must be false).
Straw Man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating someone else's argument to make it sound weaker or easier to attack, then refuting that weaker version instead of the actual argument.
Ad Hominem (Appeal to the Person): Rejecting someone's argument not because of flaws in the argument itself, but because of something negative about the person making it.
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on a very small or unrepresentative sample of cases.
QUICK REVIEW (KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS)
statement: A claim that can be true or false.
argument: A set of statements where some (premises) support another (the conclusion).
premise: A supporting statement in an argument.
conclusion: The main point that the premises are trying to prove.
indicator words: Words that suggest whether a statement is a premise or a conclusion.
deductive argument: An argument aiming for certain proof; it's valid if its structure guarantees the conclusion's truth if premises are true, and sound if it's valid and has true premises.
inductive argument: An argument aiming for probable proof; it's strong if premises make the conclusion likely, and cogent if it's strong and has true premises.
valid argument: A deductive argument whose logical form ensures the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
invalid argument: A deductive argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, even if they were true.
sound argument: A valid deductive argument where all the premises are actually true.
cogent argument: A strong inductive argument where all the premises are actually true.
implicit premises: Unstated assumptions that are needed for an argument to be logically complete or persuasive; often a source of disagreement in moral discussions.
counterexample: A specific case that disproves a general claim or tests the truth of a premise.
MORAL STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS
A moral argument has a conclusion that makes a moral judgment (e.g., "X is morally allowed" or "X is wrong").
Its premises usually include:
At least one moral premise (a general rule or principle about right/wrong).
At least one nonmoral premise (a factual statement about how things are).
You can't reach a moral conclusion purely from nonmoral facts alone; you always need at least one moral rule.
Example moral argument structure:
Committing a violent act to protect yourself from a physical attack is morally acceptable. (This is a moral rule)
Attacking a mugger who is assaulting you is a violent act of self-defense. (This is a factual statement)
Therefore, attacking a mugger who is assaulting you is morally acceptable. (This is the moral conclusion)
The factual (nonmoral) premise is essential to apply the general moral rule to a particular situation.
Any hidden (unstated) premises in moral arguments must be identified and checked to see if they are reasonable and relevant.
When an argument is deductive, you should try to uncover any unstated moral premises. If needed, you might supply a reasonable premise to test if the argument is actually valid and sound.
The importance of implied premises: They can highlight weak points in an argument, reveal hidden assumptions, and help us check if those assumptions are true and consistent with our other beliefs.
QUICK REVIEW (MORAL ARGUMENTS)
A typical moral argument contains at least one general moral rule (moral premise) and at least one factual statement (nonmoral premise).
The easiest way to spot hidden premises is to treat moral arguments as if they are deductive arguments.
Test moral premises using counterexamples to see if they are universally true.
Evaluate how premises connect to the conclusion and look for any necessary unstated premises that link general principles to specific cases.
Consider how well the premises fit with your other thought-out moral judgments and whether they are consistent with broader moral theories.
EXAM-STYLE EXERCISES AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Exercises (Review Questions):
What is the difference between trying to convince someone versus giving them logical reasons in an argument? (see page 45)
What exactly is a deductive argument? And what is an inductive argument? (see page 46)
What makes an argument "valid"? What makes an argument "strong"? (see pages 46-47)
What's the term for a valid argument that also has true premises? What about for a strong argument that also has true premises? (see page 47)
Is the following argument structure valid or invalid? (see page 48)
If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.
Is the following argument structure valid or invalid? (see page 48)
If p, then q.
If q, then r.
Therefore, if p, then r.
What is the counterexample method used for? (see page 49)
What defines a moral argument? What kinds of premises must it include? (see page 51)
What is the best way to evaluate moral premises? (see page 54)
What is the "slippery slope" fallacy? The "appeal to ignorance" fallacy? The "straw man" fallacy? (see pages 58-59)
Discussion Questions:
Is it morally wrong to believe something if you don't have enough evidence? Why or why not?
If moral reasoning is mainly about giving good reasons for moral claims, where do feelings fit in? Can you have a good argument that you also feel very strongly about? If so, give an example.
Which of these passages are actual arguments (showing careful logical thinking)? Please explain why.
If you hurt someone, they will hurt you back.
Judging people by their race is wrong. It unfairly treats racial groups, and unfair treatment is wrong.
If you say something that offends me, I have the right to stop you from saying it again. After all, words are like weapons, and I have a right to prevent weapons from being used against me.
What's the difference between trying to convince someone to believe a claim and giving them solid reasons to accept it? Can a logically sound argument also be persuasive? Why or why not?
Why might people be tempted to use the "straw man" fallacy when they disagree about moral issues? How do you react when someone uses this misleading tactic against your argument?
SUMMARY
An argument is a set of statements with supporting premises and a conclusion. For a good argument, the conclusion should logically follow from the premises, and the premises themselves should be true.
Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments:
Deductive: Aims for absolute proof. It's valid if its structure guarantees the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. It's sound if it's valid and has true premises.
Inductive: Aims for probable support. It's strong if the premises make the conclusion likely to be true. It's cogent if it's strong and has true premises.
Moral arguments combine moral premises (general ethical rules) with nonmoral premises (facts about the world) to reach moral judgments.
Implicit (hidden) premises are often very important. You should check them carefully by treating the argument as deductive and using counterexamples.
Always be careful in your methods: Use reliable information, weigh conflicting evidence fairly, and avoid common thinking errors (cognitive biases) that lead you to favor what you already believe.
Beware of these common fallacies (bad arguments): begging the question, equivocation, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, faulty analogy, appeal to ignorance, straw man, ad hominem (attacking the person), and hasty generalization.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
When evaluating moral arguments, the best approach is to treat them as deductive arguments. This helps you discover any unstated premises, after which you can assess both the argument's validity/strength and the truthfulness of its premises.
If an argument relies on moral rules, make sure there's a connecting factual (nonmoral) premise that links the general rule to the specific situation. Without this, the argument might be illogical or unfounded.
In any moral discussion, strive for clarity, fairness, and logical consistency. The goal should be to find the truth, not just to win the debate.