Latest Global T 1
Latest Global T 1
Latest Global T 1
4
3.3.2.1. Rationalisation
Studying ethics involves attempting to find valid reasons for
the moral arguments that we make
an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions;
instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or
opinions
real value of discussing and debating ethical questions is
not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’ against the
other person
One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’
or ‘wrong’ – and – involves what is known as a rationalization
Rationalization
occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational
or credible motives to cover up our true (and perhaps
unconscious) motives
Example: landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant
• states that this is driven by a desire to create local
employment opportunities
• their true motive is to make a profit
• however, they argue that they want to make a
personal profit and create local jobs, then they may
be giving two true reasons for their motives
5
3.3.2.2. Types of reasoning
Reasoning by analogy
explains one thing by comparing it to something
else that is similar, although also different
good analogy, the similarity outweighs the
dissimilarity and is clarifying
Example: animals are like and unlike humans
• Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the
argument that we should ascribe rights to
nonhuman animals as we do to humans?
Deductive reasoning
applies a principle to a situation
Example: if every person has human rights, and
you are a person, then you have human rights like
every person
Inductive reasoning
providing evidence to support a hypothesis
The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the
more we may rely on it
Example: moral duty to reduce carbon emissions
3.3.2.3. Ethics and Religious Faith
For many people, morality and religious faith go hand in hand
6
o people view actions as being right or wrong in terms of
whether they are commanded by a god
Some moral philosophers do not view arguments based on
religious faith as being rationally defensible
o we are able to know what is right or wrong without relying
on any divine commandments, as we can use rational
reflection
faith-based arguments are relevant to moral philosophy for
several reasons
people do not always agree on what is right or wrong It
is not therefore clear that we can determine what
is right and wrong simply through rational
reflection
Many people in the world do look to religion for
moral guidance
o we should not underestimate the ability of ‘the
moral teachings of a religious tradition […] to
persuade the public to embrace a higher moral
standard
moral principles and decisions should be justified by
rational arguments, and thus consideration of religious
arguments should not be excluded from the study of
ethics
3.3.2.4. Testing moral arguments
7
Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone
gives us a reason to support an argument
It is important and useful to develop the ability to test your
own arguments and those of others
Three ways to test a moral argument
Factual accuracy
- we should not derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’
- we cannot say that something is wrong or right simply
based on how things are
- the accuracy of the factual content of a discussion is
very important otherwise their moral argument would
lose its force
Consistency
- Arguments need to be consistent
- you have to show that there is a moral difference
between the two. Otherwise your arguments are
inconsistent
o Example: moral argument that debts owed by poorer
nations to international lenders should be cancelled.
• What about poor people owe money to banks should
also have their debts cancelled?
Good will
- While arguments may be factually correct and
consistent, they also need to ‘exemplify good will’
- This involves resorting to our intuitions and emotions,
8
which are notoriously difficult to integrate with rigorous
theoretical debate