Moral Reasoning

1
Moral Reasoning
A Crucial Test for Critical Thinking

• Making appropriate use of facts and opinions to
  decide the right thing to do

Quotations from Jacob Needlemans The American
Soul
2
Factual Issues
Example Franklin believed that the United States
should attempt to use reason to create its
political system. (It's a fact that he believed
this.) Example It is illegal to bring glass
beverage containers into Bidwell Park. (T or
F) Note If two parties take conflicting
positions on a matter of fact, one of them must
be wrong.
Moral principles may be deeply held and may even
be written into law, but because they are always
debatable, they are not factual claims.
3
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 ones own
best thought together with ones best effort to
listen and attend to the other. (p. 129) As
particular moral claim We are obliged, by the
laws of conscience, to bring to the earth what
the Indians brought. (p. 236)
4
A syllogism with a prescriptive claim...
All human beings must respect life. The Borzians
do not respect life. So, the Borzians are not
human.
This sort of reasoning is often used to
"dehumanize" opponents or people who belong to a
different culture. The logic is valid, so is
there really a problem here?
5
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.
6
A Naturalistic Fallacy
The community of Ephrata was founded in the 18th
century by Conrad Beissel on traditional mystical
spiritual principles. So, our modern communities
should try to follow the example of Ephrata.
Why might this be a naturalistic fallacy?
7
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. Its 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.
8
Consistency in Moral Reasoning
Fairness seems to require consistency of some
sort acting according to clear 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.
9
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
widespread acceptance of relativism damage or
even kill American pluralism?
10
Utilitarian Reasoning

• Consider individuals that are conscious of
  pleasure or pain

11
Utilitarian Reasoning

• Consider individuals that are conscious of
  pleasure or pain
• Maximize happiness

12
Utilitarian Reasoning

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

13
Utilitarian Reasoning

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

14
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

15
Reasoning from Duty Theory

• Should an individual follow rules because they
  seem to specify the right thing to do?

16
Reasoning from Duty Theory

• Should an individual follow rules because they
  seem to specify the right thing to do?
• Hypothetical imperatives (ifthen), which
  consider results, cannot serve as guides to what
  is intrinsically or naturally right.

17
Reasoning from Duty Theory

• Should an individual follow rules because they
  seem to specify the right thing to do?
• Hypothetical imperatives (ifthen), 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.

18
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?
19
Divine Command Theory

• God determines the rules.

20
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?
21
Reasoning in Virtue Ethics

• Centrality of good character

22
Reasoning in Virtue Ethics

• Centrality of good character
• How to be vs. what to do

23
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

24
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
in general 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.