Moral Reasoning

A Crucial Test for Critical Thinking

Making appropriate use of facts

and opinions to decide the right
thing to do
QuotationsfromJacobNeedlemans

TheAmericanSoul

Factual Issues
Iftwopartiestakeconflictingpositionsona
matteroffact,oneofthemmustbewrong.
Example:FranklinbelievedthattheUnitedStates
shouldattempttousereasontocreateitspolitical
system.
Example:Itisillegaltobringglassbeverage
containersintoBidwellPark.
Moralprinciplesmaybedeeplyheldandmay
evenbewrittenintolaw,butbecausetheyare
alwaysdebatable,theyarenotfactualclaims.

Prescriptive Claims
Inmoralreasoning,prescriptiveclaims(claims
containingtheideaofshouldorought)mayshowupas
generalprinciplesorasmoralobligationsthatdirect
agentstoengageinoravoidsomespecificbehavior.
Asgeneralprinciple:EachAmericanshouldcommitto
bringingonesownbestthoughttogetherwithones
bestefforttolistenandattendtotheother.(p.129)
Asparticularmoralvaluejudgment:Weareobliged,by
thelawsofconscience,tobringtotheearthwhatthe
Indiansbrought.(p.236)

Ought and Is
Claimscontainingtheconceptsofoughtorshould
orsimilarobligationsdonotgenerallyfollowfrom
purelydescriptiveclaims.
Thenaturalisticfallacyoccurswhenadescriptionofa
situationistakentoprovidesufficientjustificationfor
creatingoracceptingsomedutyorobligation.
Agooduseofthisunderstandingoftheseparationof
oughtandis:identifyingprescriptiveassumptions
(unstatedpremises)thatarenecessarytoconnect
descriptivepremisestoprescriptiveconclusions.Thisis
onewaytoavoidnonsequitursinmoralreasoning.

A Naturalistic Fallacy
ThecommunityofEphratawasfoundedbyConrad
Beisselontraditionalmysticalspiritualprinciples.
So,ourmoderncommunitiesshouldtrytofollowthe
exampleofEphrata.

Whyisthisanaturalisticfallacy?

A Naturalistic Fallacy
ThecommunityofEphratawasfoundedbyConrad
Beisselontraditionalmysticalspiritualprinciples.
So,ourmoderncommunitiesshouldtrytofollowthe
exampleofEphrata.
Itsonlynaturaltoacceptthisconclusionifone
holdscertainbeliefsabouttraditionalmystical
spiritualprinciplesandmoderncommunities.These
beliefs,whichareassumedintheexampleabove,
wouldneedtobestatedaspremisesinthefully
explicitversionoftheargument.

Consistency in Moral Reasoning

Fairnessseemstorequireconsistencyofsomesort:
actingaccordingtorulesorprinciples
lettingprojectedoutcomesguideaction
Aknownproblem:Theendsjustifythemeans.
Caseinpoint:theaffirmativeactioncontroversy
Thereis(now)broadagreementthatsocietyshouldoffer
equalopportunity.Thereisdeepdisagreementonwhat
constitutesequalopportunityandhowtoachieveit.

Relativism and Pluralism

Moralrelativism:atheoreticalpositionthatthereareno
unvaryingstandardsorprinciplesofrightandwrong
Theusualimplicationisthattheprevailingbeliefsofeach
cultureareequallyrightorlegitimate.Butarethey?
Americanpluralism:asociopoliticalarrangementthat
theoreticallyallowsindividualsfreedomtobelieveasthey
willandtoliveaccordingtotheirbeliefs
Thequestionformodern/postmodernsocietyiswhether
Americanpluralismdependsoncertainfundamental
beliefstosurvive.CouldrelativismkillAmerican
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 (ifthen), 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 (ifthen), 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

Keypointindutytheory:Categoricalimperatives,
whicharebasedontheintentiontodotheright
thing,canbetestedbyaskingiftherulewouldbea
goodoneforeveryonetofollow.

Acategoricalimperative:Avoidviolence.
Whatwouldhappenifeveryonefollowedthisrule?
Alsoimportant:Evenifeveryonewantedtofollow
thisrule,wouldtheyinterpretitthesameway?

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.
Apointforbelieversinthistheorytoconsider:
IsanactionorrulerightbecauseGodsaysitisright
ordoesGodsayaruleoractionisrightbecauseit
simplyis?

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)Moralreasoningmaycometoconclusions
aboutprinciplesoractions.
2)Atleastonepremisemustbesuppliedbya
moraltheorythatspecifieswhatisrightor
whatoughttobedone.
3)Purelydescriptiveclaimsaboutmattersof
factarenotsufficienttocreateacompletely
explicitmoralargument.
4)Assumptionsmustberecognized.