People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria ‫الجمهورية الجزائرية الديمقراطية الشعبية‬

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research ‫وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي‬
Mohamed Lamine Debaghine Sétif 2 University 2‫جامعة محمد لمين دباغين سطيف‬ 1
Faculty of Letters and Languages ‫كلية اآلداب واللغات‬
Departement of English Language and Literature ‫قسم اللغة واألدب اإلنجليزي‬

ETHICS & DEONTOLOGY Week 02

UNIT TWO: Moral Intuitions and Critical Reasoning

1.1. Moral Intuitions

1.2. Critical Reasoning

1.1. Moral Intuitions

When we refer to moral intuitions, we mean strong, stable, immediate moral

beliefs. These moral beliefs are strong insofar as they are held with confidence
and resist counter-evidence (although strong enough counter evidence can
sometimes overturn them). They are stable in that they are not just temporary
whims but last a long time (although there will be times when a person who has a
moral intuition does not focus attention on it). They are immediate because they
do not arise from any process that goes through intermediate steps of conscious
reasoning (although the believer is conscious of the resulting moral belief). (Psyc
INFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

In ethics, a moral intuition is therefore that immediate, strong sense, and

powerful instinct about what should or should not happen in a particular
situation.

Intuitions can come from a range of sources: personal and family

history, unconscious biases, custom, culture or a strong, stable and well-founded
sense of what’s right. Our intuitions can also be based on our emotional response
to a situation.

Opinions differ on what we should do with our moral intuitions. Should we follow
trust, or ignore them? Should we consider them as irrational, unjustifiable
claims about what’s right or wrong? Or should we treat them as one piece of
evidence among many when we are making a decision?

Studying ethics, then, involves trying to find valid reasons for the moral
arguments that we make. We are required to think critically about the moral
ideas that we hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing arguments,
and to be able to articulate and explain the reasons and assumptions on which
2
those arguments are based.

1.2. Critical Reasoning

There are three forms of critical reasoning that we can use to justify our
arguments. These are:

1.2.1. Reasoning by analogy

Reasoning by analogy involves drawing specific conclusions from other specific

examples based on the similarities between them – the fact that they are
‘analogous’ to one another. When reasoning by analogy takes place, the objective
is to say something specific about the case at hand based on the fact that it is
‘like’ other examples in certain ways.

Example:

If you want to persuade a friend to watch a film you enjoyed, the easiest way to
persuade him/her may be to compare the movie to other movies you know that
she/he has watched. Using a comparison between something new and something
known is analogical reasoning, where we draw conclusions by comparing two
things. Reasoning by analogy is a way to help others understand, to persuade, and
to reason.

1.2.2. Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of rreasoning from one
or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and
links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear,
and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached
is necessarily true. For instance:

1. All men are mortal. (First premise)

2. Socrates is a man. (Second premise)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

Also,

If every person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human
rights like every person.

Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms of their validity and soundness.

An argument is ‘valid’ if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its
3
conclusion is false. In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises
are true. However, an argument can be ‘valid’ even if one or more of its premises
are false.

An argument is ‘sound’ if it is valid and the premises are true.

It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not

sound. Fallacious arguments often take that form.

The following is an example of an argument that is ‘valid’, but not ‘sound’:

1. Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback.

2. John eats carrots.
3. Therefore, John is a quarterback.

The example's first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots who are
not quarterbacks – but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises
were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is ‘valid’, but not ‘sound’. False
generalizations – such as ‘Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback’ – are
often used to make unsound arguments. The fact that there are some people
who eat carrots but are not quarterbacks proves the flaw of the argument.

In this example, the first statement uses categorical reasoning, saying that all
carrot-eaters are definitely quarterbacks. This theory of deductive reasoning –
also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded
by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic.

1.2.3. Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is

synthesized to come up with a general principle. For example, if you review the
population information of a city for the past 15 years, you may observe that the
population has increased at a consistent rate. If you want to predict what the
population will be in five years, you can use the evidence or information you have to
make an estimate.

Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are

correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth
of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence
given.
There are various ways to use inductive reasoning depending on the situation.
4
Here are the three most commonly used types of inductive reasoning:

Inductive generalization

In this type of inductive reasoning, a situation is presented; you look at evidence

from past similar situations and draw a conclusion based on the information
available.

Example: For the past three years, the company has beaten its revenue goal in
Q3. Based on this information, the company will likely beat its revenue goal in
Q3 this year.

Statistical induction

This type of inductive reasoning utilizes statistical data to draw conclusions.

Example: 90 percent of the sales team met their quota last month. John is on
the sales team. John likely met his sales quota last month.

In this case, you are using statistical evidence to inform your conclusion. While
statistical induction provides more contexts for a possible outcome or
prediction, it is crucial to remember new evidence may vary from past research
and can prove a theory incorrect.

Induction by confirmation

Induction by confirmation allows you to reach a possible conclusion, but you must
include specific assumptions for the outcome to be accepted. This type of
inductive reasoning is used often by police officers and detectives. Here’s an
example:

John broke into a building.

Anybody who breaks into a building will have opportunity, motive and means.

John was in the area and had security device picks in his bag.

John likely broke into the building.