Download Definition in Moral Discourse

Assignments

For Tuesday, read Feinberg and
Levenbook, ”Abortion” in the text.



On Thursday, we will talk about Don Marquis, “Why
Abortion is Immoral” and Sinnott-Armstrong’s
response to that paper.
Work on your essay paper. The deadline of the
first draft is, as you know, Thursday, March 2.
(You should bring two copies in the class
session.)
The extra credit assignment of revising a paper
(the argument paper or the comprehension
paper) for the class is due on March 9.
Definition in Moral Discourse
2006 Makoto Suzuki
Main Types of ‘Definitions’ in Moral Discourse
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clarifying Definitions: definitions for making clear what participants have
been talking about

E.g.: Beauchamp’s definition of suicide
Stating morally or legally relevant characteristics: characterizing the
conditions that makes something morally or legally important (in either a
positive or a negative way)

E.g.: the characterization of a person in moral sense (i.e., the being
who can have moral rights), what a good for an individual consists in;
the characterization of punishment, abortion, war, POW etc. in laws
Disambiguating definitions
•
Their role is to make clear what the speaker means by an ambiguous
word, e.g., “modesty”: does the speaker mean by it (1) “not talking
much about one’s abilities or possessions”, (2) “not showing one’s body
and attracting sexual attention”, or (3) “not so extravagant”?
Precising definitions
•
Their role is to make a sharp boundary around the things to which a
term refers: e.g.: “I stipulate that an adult be over 20 years old.”
Definitions of technical or theoretical terms

E.g.: the definition of utilitarianism, retributivism etc.
The Importance of Distinguishing 1 and 2




It is very important to distinguish 1 and 2.
For example, suppose you mistake Beauchamp in Part 1
(pp.71-83) to engage in 2, i.e., in specifying the
conditions that makes self-killings (unjustified) suicides.
Then, you might criticize Beauchamp’s definition for
making certain sacrificial deaths cases of (unjustified)
suicide as “unfair”, “morally wrongheaded” etc.
However, this criticism is misguided because Beauchamp
is just trying to do 1., i.e., clarifying what people have
been talking about by “suicide”. Beauchamp does not
claim that these sacrificial deaths are unjustified.
 In fact, he later argues that they are justified cases of
suicide.
1. Clarifying Definitions



The role: to avoid talking past each other between people
who talk about an issue, e.g., the moral permissibility of
suicide. If the subject is confusing, you need to do so.
How to make: consider and state all the common features of
the things the term (“suicide” in this case) applies to, but
which are not shared by the things the term fails to apply
 The agent’s intention to die is one of the common
features of the things that “suicide” applies to, but which
are not shared by things the term fails to apply, e.g.,
accidental deaths; thus, your clarifying definition of
“suicide” should mention the agent’s intention.
How to criticize: point out either that the definition applies
to things other than what the term (“suicide” in this case)
refers to, or that it fails to apply to things that the term
actually refers to.
Continued
What you should not do:
Give circular definitions or definitions with synonymy

1.


E.g.: “Property rights are rights over properties”; “euthanasia is
mercy-killing.”
These definitions neither clarify the subject nor help people
avoid talking past each other.
Use evaluative terms in definitions
2.


E.g.: “Lying is an unjustified assertion of falsity”; “Suicide is
self-murder”; “Abortion is the murder of fetuses”; “Punishment
is the permissible infliction of sufferings”; etc.
There are two problems. (1) Because different people have
different ideas about what is (un)justified, (im)permissible etc,
they will talk past each other even if they agree with the words
of the definitions. (2) More seriously, these definitions beg the
questions. Because the clarifying definitions are made for talking
about the morality of lying, suicide, abortion, punishment etc.,
they must not prejudge the answers first.
Substantial Issues do not hinge on
clarifying definitions.



As far as clarifying definitions do not include evaluative terms,
substantial issues do not hinge on how they are defined.
For example, Beauchamp and Margolis disagrees about whether
the clarifying definition of suicide should make certain selfsacrifices the cases of suicide.
 For example, the definition of Beauchamp makes the following
self-sacrifice suicide: the father kills himself in the midst of a
famine so that his wife and children have enough to eat.
Margolis’ definition excludes the case from the category of
suicide.
However, they can agree with the morality of particular actions.
 E.g.: Beauchamp and Margolis can agree that the father’s
action is morally permissible. Surely, Beauchamp will then say,
“that suicide is permissible”, and Margolis says, ”that selfsacrifice is permissible”, but the difference is in expression, not
in what is said.
2. Stating morally or legally
relevant features



The role: to express a moral or legal
criterion.
How to do: give moral or legal arguments
for the criterion.
How to criticize: criticize the arguments
provided for the criterion, and supply moral
or legal arguments against the criterion.


Substantial issues hinge on how to
state morally or legally relevant
characteristics.
For example, if a person in moral sense is necessarily a
biological human being, fetuses can have moral rights
(while God, angels, ETs, apes, androids etc. cannot have
moral rights). On the other hand, if a person in moral
sense is necessarily a being with the combination of
consciousness, self-awareness, minimal rationality etc.,
then fetuses probably cannot have moral rights (while
the beings mentioned above might be able to have moral
rights).
For another example, suppose a person commits crimes
but is judged to be incompetent and is confined to
medical facility. Because this is not punishment by legal
criterion, the due process clause does not apply to his or
her case.