Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Moral Arguments
Aretaic arguments can either take the evaluation of actions as logically more
fundamental than the evaluation of persons:
(1) H1 does good actions
(2) H1 has motives that lead to good actions Tf,
(3) H1 has good motives
Tf,
(4) H1 is a good person
or they can take the evaluation of persons as logically more fundamental (this is the
view of 'virtue ethics')
(1) H1's doing A1 is an action that would be done by a person with virtue V
(2) It is morally good to do acitons that would be done by a person with virtue V Tf,
(3) H1 ought to do A1
In both cases, notice that what we are evaluating is the moral status of a person.
Be able to identify and evaluate the form of all of the Deductive Syllogisms,
(Please list the proper form for each type, and if it passes or fails the good
form test. If it had all true premises, would the argument be sound or
unsound?)
Affirming the consequent
1. If S1, then S2
2. S2
3. TF, S1
Affirming the antecedent
Denying the antecedent
1. If S1, then S2
2. Not S1
Therefore,
3. Not S2
Denying the consequent
1.If S1, then S2
2.Not S2
Therefore,
3.Not S1
Denying the Disjunctive
1. S1 or S2
2. Not S1
3. Therefore, S2
Affirming an Exclusive Disjunction
1. S1 or S2 (but not both)
2. S1
Therefore,
3.Not S2
Affirming an Inclusive Disjunction
1. S1 or S2
2. S1
3. Therefore, not S2
Tri-Conditional
1. If S1, then S2
2. If S2, then S3
Therefore,
3. If S1, then S3
Causal Arguments
• Causal arguments are inductive arguments.
A causal argument is an argument whose conclusion asserts that some event or
state of affairs caused some other event or state of affairs.
Why is correlation alone not sufficient to prove causation?
• If there is no correlation, there cannot be causation.
• Establishing correlation does not show the existence of causation.
• Binary features are features of events that the event either has or
does not have.
• Scalar features are features of events that the even has to a greater or
lesser degree.
Define each, and provide an example) of
necessary cause
sufficient cause
necessary and sufficient cause
or contributory cause.
what gives a causal argument good form?
True premises
What are some common causal fallacies?
Analogical Arguments
argument that proceeds by comparison. They are inductive arguments.
what is the standard form of an analogical argument?
look for reliance on comparison.
(1) X1s have features F1, F2, F3, … and feature Fn.
(2) X2s also have features F1, F2, F3, …
Therefore,
(3) X2s probably have Fn.
define
Analogues – the things to which the entities in the conclusion are being
compared, X1s.
Primary Subjects – the things about which a conclusion is being drawn, X2s.
Similarities – the features that the premises claim are shared by the analogue
and the primary subject, F1, F2, F3, …
Conclusory Feature – the feature in the argument’s conclusion that is claimed
to be a feature of the primary subject, Fn.
What gives an analogical argument good form?
• analogical argument passes the good form test if the truth of the premises
makes the truth of the conclusion likely.
How do we evaluate premises in an analogical argument with nonempirical premises?
Basis of fact v. conjecture
MILLS METHODS
1. The Method of Agreement
2. The Method of Difference
3. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
4. The Method of Scalar Variation
MORAL ARGUMENT FORMS
Action
(1) H1’s doing A1 has feature F.
(2) It is morally good/bad to do actions that have feature F.
Therefore,
(3) H1 ought/ought not to do A1.
Person
(1) H1 has feature F.
(2) It is morally good/bad for a person to have feature F.
Therefore,
(3) H1 is a good/bad person.