Concise Guide to Critical Thinking Chapter 11

Moral statement Moral statements— A statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive) is good or bad. Moral statements— Serena should keep her promise to you. It is wrong to treat James so harshly. Abortion is immoral.

Nonmoral statement A statement that does not assert that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that something (such as a person or motive) is good or bad. Nonmoral statements describe states of affairs. Nonmoral statements— Serena did not keep her promise to you. James was treated harshly. Some people think abortion is immoral.

Moral Argument An argument whose conclusion is a moral statement. The standard moral argument is a mixture of moral and nonmoral statements. At least one premise is a moral statement that asserts a general moral principle or moral standard.

A Typical Moral Argument It is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on a child. [A moral premise.] Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child. [A nonmoral premise.] Therefore, spanking is wrong. [A moral statement.]

Some moral principles that both parties in moral debates often accept: Personal benefit: Acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question. Principle of benevolence: Help those in need. Principle of harm: Do not harm others. Principle of honesty: Do not deceive others. Principle of lawfulness: Do not violate the law. Principle of autonomy: Acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body. Principle of justice: Acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits. Rights: Acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety

Gauging the truth of moral premises (moral principles) mostly involves examining the support they get from three sources: Other moral principles. Moral theories. Considered moral judgments.

Considered moral judgments Moral judgments that we consider credible after we carefully and dispassionately reflect on them. Pertaining to either specific cases or general statements, they constitute what philosophers have called our moral common sense. They are not infallible guides to morality, but unless we have good reasons for doubting their soundness, we are entitled to trust them.

Moral Theory A Theory that explains why an act is right or wrong, or a person or motive is good or bad. We all have a moral theory. Whether we articulate it or not, we all have some kind of view of what makes actions right or persons good. Moral theorizing is a fact of the moral life. Despite the importance of moral theories, they are not the ultimate authority or sole referee in moral reasoning. A theory gives us very general norms, but morality is about more than just generalities— it’s also about the particulars of individual moral judgments.

Judging Moral Theories Moral Criteria of Adequacy: Consistency with our considered moral judgments. Consistency with our experience of the moral life. Workability in real-life situations.

Judging Moral Theories SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM What makes an action right for someone is that it is approved by that person. Moral philosophers think the theory has several problematic implications: Infallibility Near impossible moral disagreement.

Judging Moral Theories SOCIAL RELATIVISM What makes an action right is that it’s approved by one’s society or culture. Moral philosophers think the theory has problematic implications: Infallibility Social reformers would always be wrong.

Judging Moral Theories ETHICAL EGOISM What makes an action right is that it promotes one’s own best interests. Critics say the theory is implausible because it sanctions all sorts of abominable acts.

Legal Reasoning Using deductive reasoning: The judge ascertains a relevant rule of law, identifies the facts to which the rule pertains, and applies the rule to the facts. Using inductive reasoning:   Courts must determine what the facts are in cases, and that task must involve inductive reasoning. Inductive inferences in the form of arguments from analogy are both common and essential in judicial reasoning. Cases may need to be judged in light of precedent, which calls for arguments by analogy.

Legal Reasoning An Example of Argument by Analogy   In the cases relevant to the present case, persons with lung cancer sue cigarette manufacturers for causing their cancer, and the courts rule that the persons must be compensated for their illness. In the present case, a person with lung cancer sues a cigarette manufacturer for causing her cancer. Therefore, in the present case, the person with lung cancer should probably be compensated.