Moral Reasoning Making appropriate use of facts and opinions to decide the right thing to do Quotations from Jacob Needleman’s The American Soul A Crucial Test for Critical Thinking

Factual Issues If two parties take conflicting positions on a matter of fact, one of them must be wrong. Example: Franklin believed that the United States should attempt to use reason to create its political system. Example: It is illegal to bring glass beverage containers into Bidwell Park. Moral principles may be deeply held and may even be written into law, but because they are always debatable, they are not factual claims.

Prescriptive Claims In moral reasoning, prescriptive claims (claims containing the idea of should or ought) may show up as general principles or as moral obligations that direct agents to engage in or avoid some specific behavior. As general principle: Each American should commit to “…bringing one’s own best thought together with one’s best effort to listen and attend to the other.” (p. 129) As particular moral value judgment: “We are obliged, by the laws of conscience, to bring to the earth what the Indians brought.” (p. 236)

“Ought” and “Is” Claims containing the concepts of “ought” or “should” or similar obligations do not generally follow from purely descriptive claims. The naturalistic fallacy occurs when a description of a situation is taken to provide sufficient justification for creating or accepting some duty or obligation. A good use of this understanding of the separation of “ought” and “is”: identifying prescriptive assumptions (unstated premises) that are necessary to connect descriptive premises to prescriptive conclusions. This is one way to avoid non sequiturs in moral reasoning.

A Naturalistic Fallacy The community of Ephrata was founded by Conrad Beissel on traditional mystical spiritual principles. So, our modern communities should try to follow the example of Ephrata. Why is this a naturalistic fallacy?

A Naturalistic Fallacy The community of Ephrata was founded by Conrad Beissel on traditional mystical spiritual principles. So, our modern communities should try to follow the example of Ephrata. It’s only “natural” to accept this conclusion if one holds certain beliefs about traditional mystical spiritual principles and modern communities. These beliefs, which are assumed in the example above, would need to be stated as premises in the fully explicit version of the argument.

Consistency in Moral Reasoning Fairness seems to require consistency of some sort: acting according to rules or principles letting projected outcomes guide action A known problem: The ends justify the means. Case-in-point: the affirmative action controversy There is (now) broad agreement that society should offer equal opportunity. There is deep disagreement on what constitutes equal opportunity and how to achieve it.

Relativism and Pluralism Moral relativism: a theoretical position that there are no unvarying standards or principles of right and wrong The usual implication is that the prevailing beliefs of each culture are equally right or legitimate. But are they? American pluralism: a socio-political arrangement that theoretically allows individuals freedom to believe as they will and to live according to their beliefs The question for modern/post-modern society is whether American pluralism depends on certain fundamental beliefs to survive. Could relativism kill American pluralism?

Utilitarian Reasoning Consider individuals that are conscious of pleasure or pain

Utilitarian Reasoning Consider individuals that are conscious of pleasure or pain Maximize happiness

Utilitarian Reasoning Consider individuals that are conscious of pleasure or pain Maximize happiness Minimize unhappiness

Utilitarian Reasoning Consider individuals that are conscious of pleasure or pain Maximize happiness Minimize unhappiness Focus on consequences of actions

Utilitarian Reasoning Consider individuals that are conscious of pleasure or pain Maximize happiness Minimize unhappiness Focus on consequences of actions Rights, obligations, intentions are not easily included in premises of utilitarian arguments

Reasoning from Duty Theory Should an individual follow rules because they seem to specify the right thing to do?

Reasoning from Duty Theory Should an individual follow rules because they seem to specify the right thing to do? Hypothetical imperatives (if…then), which consider results, cannot serve as guides to what is intrinsically or naturally right.

Reasoning from Duty Theory Should an individual follow rules because they seem to specify the right thing to do? Hypothetical imperatives (if…then), which consider results, cannot serve as guides to what is intrinsically or naturally right. Categorical imperatives, which are based on the intention to do the right thing, can be tested by asking if the rule would be a good one for everyone to follow.

Reasoning from Duty Theory Key point in duty theory: Categorical imperatives, which are based on the intention to do the right thing, can be tested by asking if the rule would be a good one for everyone to follow. A categorical imperative: Avoid violence. What would happen if everyone followed this rule? Also important: Even if everyone wanted to follow this rule, would they interpret it the same way?

Divine Command Theory God determines the rules.

Divine Command Theory God determines the rules Existence of different religions creates a problem for this theory as a basis for ethics in a pluralistic society. A point for believers in this theory to consider: Is an action or rule right because God says it is right or does God say a rule or action is right because it simply is?

Reasoning in Virtue Ethics Centrality of good character

Reasoning in Virtue Ethics Centrality of good character How to be vs. what to do

Reasoning in Virtue Ethics Centrality of good character How to be vs. what to do Works well with original American intention to protect religious freedom as a way of encouraging sincere efforts toward personal development

Creating and Evaluating Moral Arguments 1) Moral reasoning may come to conclusions about principles or actions. 2) At least one premise must be supplied by a moral theory that specifies what is right or what ought to be done. 3) Purely descriptive claims about matters of fact are not sufficient to create a completely explicit moral argument. 4) Assumptions must be recognized.