Evaluating Moral

Arguments
Subtitle
Definition
• (A) moral reasoning (moral reasoning): critical reasoning
(critical reasoning) applied to the field of morality

• (B) critical reasoning: a systematic assessment of the

statement or claim (claim)

• (C) proposition or proposition: whether or not something is

an argument, it is not true (true) is false (false)
Claims and Arguments
• Statement - is an assertion that something is or is not the case; it is either
true or false.
• examples of statement
• The ship sailed on the wind-tossed sea.
• i feel tired and listless.
• Murder is wrong.
• 5+5=10
• A circle is not a square
The following however are not statements:
• Why is Anna laughing
• Is abortion immoral
• Hand me the screwdriver
• Dont' speak to me
• Hello, webster
• For heaven's sake
Argument
• An argument is a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be
supported by the rest.
• An argument in this sense, of course, has nothing to do with the common
notion of arguments as shouting matches or vehement quarrels
• In an argument, the supporting statements are known as premises; the
statement being supported is known as a conclusion
• (D) argument (argument):
• (1) The Basic Principles of Critical Reasoning: Without
good reason, we should not accept that certain
propositions are true.
• (2) The reason for proposition itself is also a proposition.
Argumentation consists of a group of propositions, one of
which is supported by other propositions.
• (3) the propositions that are supported are conclusions;
the other propositions are called premises
The Assessment of the Argument
(A) the quality of the argument: a good argument can
prove that the conclusion is worth believing or
accepting; the bad argument can not prove this.
(B) type of argument
(1) Deductive argument: Premise provided support
for the conclusion is inevitable
(2) Inductive argument: Premise support for the
conclusion is only possible
ADD TITLE HERE
(C) deduction demonstration
(1) valid argument: If the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true
(2) invalid argument:
If the premises are true, the conclusion may be
false
(3) Argumentation is valid based on the form of
argument, not Its content.
(4) sound argument: the premise are really valid
argument
• Induction
(1) strong inductive argument: The support provided by the premises makes
the conclusion likely true.

(2) Weak inductive argument: If the premises are true, the conclusion is not
likely to be true

(3) Cogent argument: Premise are really strong induction

Click to add text.

• (E) how to assess the quality of the argument
• (1) Check the form of argument and the truth of the premise
• (2) test induction requires common sense
• (3) Test the validity of deductive argument: Use some simple forms of valid
argument.
• (4) conditional statement: the difference between antecedent and
consequent
• (5) Sufficient conditions and necessary conditions
CONTENTS
• 6) introduce a few simple form of effective argument
• Modus ponens
• If P, then Q.
• P/Q
• Modus tollens
• If P, then Q.
• ~Q/~P
• hypothetical syllogism
• If P, then Q.
• If Q, then R / P, R
• (7) counter example method:
• Proof of a deductive argument invalid method, but it can not Prove an argument
is valid. example:
• All the banyan trees are all creatures A is B.
• All plants are creatures of the form: all C is B.
• ∴ All banyan trees are plants ∴ All A is C.
• We replace A with "horse", "B" with animal, "C" with "cow", and the result
becomes
• All horses are animals
• All cattle are animals
• All horses are cattle
• So the original argument is invalid.
• (Vi) hidden premise
• (1) Arguments in daily life are all included in the context of non-
argumentation. We must pick out its premises and conclusions in order to
evaluate the argument.
• (2) Sometimes the preconditions of some arguments have not been written
clearly. These unspecified premises are often controversial. We must find
out these hidden premises. For example, murder is morally wrong, so
abortion is wrong. Not shown on the premise that abortion is a murder.
Third, the moral proposition and argument
• (A) Definition:
• (1) moral argument:
• The conclusion of one argument is a moral proposition
• (2) Moral statement:
• Be sure a behavior is right or wrong, or be sure a person is
• Good or bad proposition.
• (3) non-moral proposition: to judge a state of affairs, not Fu
• Give it moral value. Non-moral propositions can also be norms
• Sexual judgments, such as: This is a good car.
• (B) the structure of moral argument
• (1) Minimum Requirements: At least one premise is a moral proposition,
and at least one premise is an immoral proposition about the situation.
• (2) At least one of the premises required is a moral proposition, because
we can not deduce moral propositions from non-moral propositions. That
is, from the "real" can not be introduced "should be."
• (3) There is at least one more premise that is non-moral propositions,
since moral propositions in the premises are generally a general principle,
and we can not deduce from a general ethical principle that a particular
one may be introduced from a general ethical principle From a general
moral principle, one particular type can be introduced from a general
ethical principle and a particular one can be introduced.
• C) the test of moral premises
• (1) The best way to evaluate moral preconditions is not to use
scientific research or polls.
• (2) The controversy over the non-moral prerequisites is all about the
facts, which include the result of the action and the characteristics of
the parties. The most important principle for testing non-moral
premises is that it must be supported by good reason.
• D) bad argument
• (1) begging the question
• The arguer creates an illusion that an inappropriate premise provides
appropriate support for the conclusion by either a) missing a likely false
premise, or b) repeating a possible false premise as a conclusion, or c)
circularly inference Begging for the fallacy of argument. The Latin meaning
of this fallacy is "request for the source," and the actual source of
supportive conclusions is not significant. After hearing such arguments,
observers tend to ask: "But how do you know X?" , Where X needs
support.
• (2) the term double (equivacation)
• When the conclusion of one argument is based on the fact that one word
or word used in the argument has two different meanings, the fallacy of the
double punctuation of the word is made.
• (3) appeal to authority
• The fallacy of appealing to authority is such a fallacy when the cited
authority or witness lacks credibility. There are many reasons for the lack
of credibility of the authority or witness, who may lack the necessary
professions, may be biased or biased, may be motivated by deceptive or
misleading messages, or lack the necessary observation or memory.
• (4) Landslide effect (slippery slope)
• The fallacy of the landslide effect is such a fallacy when an argument is
based on a chain reaction and there is not enough reason to believe that
this chain reaction will actually occur.
• (5) wrong analogy (faulty analogy)
• Arguments based on analogy are based on the corollary of the existence
of an analogy between two things or two situations that have similarities,
and if the analogy or similarity is not strong enough to support the
conclusion, this fallacy is made.
• (6) appeal to ignorance
• The argument is mainly that we believe in a certain claim because of the
lack of evidence. If the premise of the argument states an uncertified
subject, and the conclusion concludes a definite conclusion on the matter,
then a fallacy of resorting to ignorance is committed. The issues here
usually involve something that you can not prove or have not proved yet.
• (7) Straw man
• When an arguer misinterprets or distorts an opponent's arguments, the
purpose is to make the argument easier to attack, to destroy the distorted
argument, and to reach the conclusion that the opponent's true argument
has been destroyed.
• (8) Personal attacks (appeal to the person)
• This fallacy involves two arguments, one of which argues for one argument
and the other responds not to the first person's argument but to him
personally, and when that happens, the second person commits the fallacy
of personal attacks.
• (9) hasty generalization
• Its corollary is to deduce from all the selected samples in a certain set to
all the members of the set, and when the selected sample is not likely to
be a typical example of the set, a mistake is skittishly summed up. Sample
is not an example There are two possible scenarios: a) The sample size is
too small; or b) It is not a random sample.
Chapter Summary
• An argument is a group of statements, one of which is supposed to be
supported by the rest. To be more precise, an argument consists of one or
more premises and a conclusion. In a good argument, the conclusion must
follow from the premises, and the premises must be true.

• Arguments come in two basic types: deductive and inductive. Deductive

arguments are meant to give logically conclusive support for their
conclusions. A deductive argument that actually provides this kind of
support is said to be valid. If it also has true premises, it is said to be
sound. An inductive argument is meant to provide probable support for its
conclusion. An inductive argument that actually provides this kind of
support is said to be strong. If it also has true premises, it is said to be
cogent.
• Deductive arguments come in different forms. Some of these forms are
known to be valid; some, invalid. Knowing these patterns helps you
determine the validity of deductive arguments. Using the counterexample
method can also aid your analysis.

• The typical moral argument consists of at least one moral premise and at
least one nonmoral premise. The best approach to evaluating moral
arguments is to treat them as deductive. This tack enables you to uncover
implicit premises. Implicit premises are often moral premises, which may
be controversial or dubious. They can be tested through the use of
counterexamples.
• In moral reasoning, you frequently encounter fallacies—bad arguments
that arise repeatedly. Some of those you are most likely to come across
are begging the question, equivocation, appeal to authority, slippery slope,
faulty analogy, appeal to ignorance, straw man, appeal to the person, and
hasty generalization.
Problem discussion
• Socrates said: "Life without reflection is not
worth living."
• Please tell your own position whether this
statement is a proper moral judgment.
First personal homework
• Consider and try to answer the following
questions: Suppose Germans in World
War II supported Hitler's massacre of
Jews. Could this fact make Hitler's
massacre of Jews a morally permissible
act? Please explain your reason.
THANK YOU