Download Moral Reasoning

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 Needleman’s
The American Soul
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.