Please help me use this book for citation for my essay

Read the book Boss - 2014 "Moral Reasoning" Ethics for Life- A Text with Readings Ch2

CHAPTER 2

.first importance.

Mo,af ReaEoning

In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and

persuasion and not by force, tlte art of reasoning becomes of tlte

-Tuoves

Jgpppnsot

In 1960, Stanley Milgram of Yale University placed an advertisement in the newspaper asking for men to participate in a scientific study on memory and learning. The participants were told that the purpose of the experiment was to study the effects of punishment (electric shock) on learning. In fact, the real purpose of the study was to see how far people were willing to go in obeying an authority figure. Although no shock was actually being delivered, the "learner"-an actor-responded with (apparently) increasing anguish as the shocks being delivered by the participant supposedly increased in intensity whenever he gave a wrong answer. Despite repeated pleas from the learner to stop the experiment, two-thirds of the participants administered the requested 450 volts-enough to kill some people-simply because an authority figure told them to continue." Were these results simply a fluke?

Several years later, Stanford University conducted a prison simulation exper- iment that involved twenty-one male student volunteers who were judged to be stable, mature, and socially well-developed. The volunteers were randomly assigned the role of guard or prisoner. The basement of one of the buildings at Stanford was converted to resemble a prison. Great care was taken to make the prison situation as realistic as possible. The "guards" and "prisoners" wore appropriate uniforms for their roles. The guards were expected to turn up for work, and the prisoners remained confined to prison twenty-four hours a day. As the experiment progressed, the guards became increasingly aggressive and authoritarian, and the prisoners become more and more passive and dispirited. After six days, the experiment had to be called off because of the atrocious and immoral behavior that the guards were exhibiting toward the prisoners.

What would you have done had you been a subject in the Milgram or the Stanford Prison experiment? Most of us like to think we have the resources to

*The

video "Obedience" is available on the Milgram experiment.

t

CHAPTER 2 Moral Reasoning 3l

A a Septetnber'2017 rully Presidanl Truntp, instead of drectly adclre.ssing Norh Koreds nucleat antbitiotts, re,sortel o the ad ltomittem.fallac'hv rerring North Korean leader Kint Jong Un a.s "little roclcet man." Kinl Jong Lltt

returned the insult bv calling Trump a "nrcnally deranged LI.S. dotard.

(YoNHAP/EPA-EFE/REX/Shuttetock

(lefi)i oSHAwN THEw/EPA-EFE/REX/Shuuersrock (//srl)

resist authority or resist getting swept up in cultural roles that allow us to demean and even kill other people. But do we? Milgram writes:

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects oftheir work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of the majority, relatively lew people have the resources needecl to resist authority.l

What are some of the resources we need to resist authority figures, or even our peers, when they urge us to commit or turn a blind eye to immoral acts? Good moral reasoning skills are certainly one of these resources. unlike those who obeyed, those who refused to continue in the Milgram study were able to give well-thought-out reasons for why they should stop. In this chapter we'll learn how to critically aalyze moral arguments and how to recognize and overcome faulty reasoning and barriers in our own thinking.

The Three Levels of Thinking

By sharpening our analytical skills, we can become more independent in our thinking and less susceptible to worldviews that foster narrow-mindedness. The thinking process used in philosophical inquiry can be broken down into three tiers or levels: experience, interpretation, and analysis. Keep in mind that this division is artificial and merely one of emphasis. we never have pure experience or engage in pure analysis. All three levels overlap and interact with one another (Figure 2.1). Experience provides the material for interpretation and analysis; analysis, in the end, returns to experience. If the results of our analysis are inconsistent with our experience, then we need to start over and fine-tune our analysis so that it takes into account all relevant experience. Analysis also returns to experience in the form of action or praxis.

Connections

Which logical fallacy might we be commit- ting when we uncritically follow those in positions of authority? Sea Clrupter 2,

pagc 55.

32 SECTION I The Study of Ethics

Analysis

lnterpretation

Experience

FIGURE 2.1 The Three Levels of Thinking

Experience

Experience is the first level of thinking. Experience goes beyond the five senses: We notice certain events happening, we observe different feelings within ourselves, we have certain intuitions, and we receive information about the world by reading or hearing about the experiences of others. Experience forms the foundation of the philosophical enterprise. Without experience, there can be no thought.

At this level of thinking, we simply describe our experiences, We do not, at least in theory, interpret or pass judgment on our experience. Figure 2.2 shows examples of statements at the level of experience:

I feel angry when Mary lies to me.

The average annual income of men is higher than women's.

FIGURE 2.2 Statements at the Experience Level

Interpretation

Interpretation involves trying to make sense of our experience. This level of thinking includes individual interpretations of experience as well as collective or cultural interpretations. Some of our interpretations may be well-informed; others may be based merely on our opinions or personal feelings. Upon analysis, an opinion may just happen to be true. Even opinions that make good sense and win the approval of others are still only opinions if we cannot support them with good reasons or factual evidence. Figure 2.3 provides some examples of statements at the level of interpretation.

lnterpretation What Mary did to me was wrong.

Experience I feel angry when Mary lies to me.

Men are more competent than women

The average annual income of men is higher than women's.

FIGURE 2.3 Statements at the Interpretation Level

The interpretations of our experiences taken together f'orm our worldview. Most of us like to think that we came up with our worlclviews regarding morality on our own. In reality, our worldviews are strongly influenced by our upblinging and by cultural norms. Our experience oontributes to our worldview, and our worldview also shapes how we experience the world. For example, in a study on stereotyping, college students were shown a picture of a White thug beating up a Black man in a business suit. When students were later asked to describe what they saw, the majority reported that they saw a Black thug beating up a White businessman! By not analyzing our worldview, we can get caught up in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, or vicious cycle, where our worldview is verified

by our "experience" and our experience, in turn, further confirms our distorted worldview.

Analtrtsis

People often blend fact and opinion. t is important, therefore, to learn to dis- tinguish between the two. By learning how to critically analyze our worldview,

just

on the findings of other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and the nat-

ural sciences; it also involves an examination of our worldviews in light of fundamental moral intuitions, moral sentiments, and collective insights.

Analysis demands that we raise our level of consciousness and refuse to accept narrow interpretations of our experience. As such, analysis often begins with questions about the assumptions underlying our interpretations. Figure 2.4 includes examples of statements at the analysis level.

we can break the vicious cycle we

described. Analysis of moral issues draws

Analysis

lnterpretaton

Experience

ls lying always wrong? What is justified in this case?

What Mary did to me was wrong

I feel angry when Mary lies to me

Are the facts correct?

lf not, is it just to pay less based on gender?

Men are more competent than women.

The average annual income of men is hiqher than women's

FIGURE 2.4 Statements at the Analysis Level

The process of moving from experience to interpretation to analysis and from there back to experience again is ongoing. Analysis is most productive when it is done collectively because people bring with them different

CIIAPl'ttR 2 Moral ltrsorting 33

34 SECTION I The Sludy of Ethics

Connections

At what level ofthinking are cultural elativ- ists and how does this

alfect their moral decision making? See Chapter 6, pages 166- 167.

Connections How do cul- tural relativists define who is in the moral community? See Chapter 6, pages 182-184,

experiences. At the same time, we cannot simply accept other people's interpre- tations of their experiences at face value.

Because we are social beings who do not exist apart from a culture and a particular cultural woildview, it is all too easy for us to be lured into accepting cultural interpretations of reality as truth. Even well-trained philosophers can become captivated by the prevailing cultural worldview or the traditional philo- sophical interpretations of their professional colleagues.

When we succumb to the temptation to follow public opinion or accept traditional assumptions without question, we become maintainers of the status quo. As such, we may even become part of the problem. Analysis that ignores certain relevant aspects of experience can become distorted, The complicity of philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) in destructive ideologies like Nazism and the promotion of sexism, elitism and religious intolerance in the name of philosophy are all instances of a philosopher accepting a prevailing worldview as truth without bothering to analyze it thoroughly,

Some liberation ethicists claim that certain groups of traditionally disem- powered people, such as African Americans, women, and economically disad- vantaged people, have epistemological privilege. Those who do not benefit from or are harmed by conventional interpretations of reality, it is argued, are the least likely to buy into or defend the interpretations that oppress them. Being the least biased in favor of traditional interpretations, they also have the least resistance o analyzing them. This is a reversal of the conventional wisdom that favors insight and the logical, abstract thinking processes used by well-educated White males.

Whether or not being disempowered or disadvantaged gives one an episte- mological advantage is up for debate. However, we do know that engaging in dialogue with people from diverse backgrounds, rather than only with people who are like us-whether we are socially and economically advantaged or disadvantaged-can help us make more effective moral decisions.' For more on conditions that promote moral development see Chapter 3.

t#f Exercises

l. Select a simple experience, such as a man holding a door open for a woman or a student giving a dollar to a beggar on the street. In groups, discuss differ- ent interpretations of the experience, being careful not to let prejudice distort your interpretation.

2. Use the three-tiered model of thinking to discuss the following experiences. The interpretations you list do not have to be ones that you personally accept; you might also want to write down some interpretations that are common in our culture. Discuss how your interpretation of this experience has shaped your past experience and actions and how analyzing this issue might affect future actions regarding the issue.

7-

CHAPTER 2 Morol Reasoning 35

a. Although Blacks represent only 13.3 percent of the u.S. population, they make up 37.8 percent of the prison inmates.3

b. In 2016, only 50 percent of Americans between the ages of lg and 29 vor.ec|, in the presidential election, well belowthe 55 percent for all voters. In acldi- tion, voter turnout was the lowest in 20 years.

c. More than half of the agricultural workers in the United States are undocu- mented immigrants.

d. Marijuana use has been decriminalized in Canada but possession for recre- ational use is still a crime in most U.S. states.

e. Men are much more likely than women to hold high-ranking faculty positions in science departments at Ivy League colleges in the United States.

3. choose an experience from your life. Analyze this experience using the thee- tiered model.

*4.

Moral Analysis and Praxis

The following story, which is attributed to Buddha, illustrates what is meant by praxis in moral philosophy: A group of people came across a man dying from a wound from a poison arrow. Instead of trying to save the man, the crowd stood around debating about where the arrow had come from, who had fired it, and the angle of the trajectory. Meanwhile, the man dies. The proper goal of the philosopher, according to Buddha, is to save the dying man, not to stand around engaging in speculation.

western philosophical methodology has traditionally focused primarily on one mode of analysis-abstract, logical reasoning-and downplayed praxis. Although logical reasoning is very important in moral philosophy, it represents only one aspect of what is meant by analysis in moral philosophy.

Feminist Methodology and Praxis n Ethical Analysis

In an article entitled "shifting Perspective: A New Approach to Ethics," cana- dian philosopher sheila Mullett outlines a process for ethical analysis based on what she calls a feminist methodology. Mullett's approach to ethical analysis involves three steps or dimensions:

L The flrst dimension, moral sensitivity, grows out of a collective conscious- ness raising. until we develop an awareness of the experience of violence,

Discuss the claim that people who have the least power in a society-those who see the world from "below"-are epistemologically privileged. If you are doing community service with a group of people such as the homeless, the econom- ically disadvantaged, or elderly people in nursing homes, use examples from this experience to illustrate your answer. Explain.

*An

vice learning as part olthe course.

asterisk indicates that the exercise is appropriate for students who are doing community ser-

36 SECTION I The Study of Ethics

Connections What role

does moral sensitivity play in women's moral develop ment?

See Chapter 3,

page 95.

victimization, and pain that surrounds us, we will continue to inadvertently perpetuate it. Only through actually experiencing-directly or indirectly- "this consciousness of pain," Mullett argues, "can we begin to cultivate a ne y attitude towards the social arrangements which contribute to suffer- ing.'a College community service learning programs have the potential to enhance our moral sensitivity.

2. The second dimension is ontological shock. Ontology is the philosophical study of "being" or the nature of being. Ontological shock is something that shakes us to the very core of our being, thus forcing us to call into question our cherished worldview or interpretations of our experiences. Simply being aware of the injustices and pain in the world are not sufficient to motivate us to do this. When we experience ontological shock, the worldview that we once took for granted is displaced, thereby forcing us to reanalyze our old assumptions. Freshmen who have never lived away from home often experi- ence ontological shock when they go away to college and come into contact with different ideas and values.

3. The third dimension of analysis is praxis. Praxis refers to the practice of a particular art or skill. In ethics, praxis requires informed social action. True philosophical analysis always returns with an altered and heightened consciousness to the wodd of particular experiences. For example, the Sep- tember ll,2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, which created ontological shock among Americans, were followed by an increase in altruis- tic behavior among New Yorkers,

Liberation Ethics and Social Action

Liberation ethicist Paulo Freire, in his book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, writes: "This shift in consciousness includes a search for collective actions that can transform the existing unjust social structures. . .5 Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation."6 Indeed, genuine praxis demands a shift away from the manner in which an individual routinely sees the world to viewing the world through the eyes of the collective "we." For example, there was an increase in hostility against Muslim-Americans following 9lll and, more recently, the Boston Marathon shootings in 2013. This type of thinking is due in part to an error or bias in human thinking, known as the "one of them/one of us" error, in which we divide the world into the "good guys" (us) and the "bad guys" (them). Hispanic immigrants, especially those who are in the country illegally, also tend to be relegated to the "them" category. Praxis requires that we become aware of this tendency and work to overcome it by treating all people with proper respect.

Analysis, in this broader sense, is interactive, interdisciplinary, and directed toward praxis or social action. This approach is not only richer and more inclu- sive but also more effective for promoting moral growth. Praxis demands that we cultivate our own moral character. Until we overcome our own narrow

Connections Do we behave altruistically simply out of selinterest? See Chaper Z paees 213-214.

Y

interpretations of the world and incorporate these changes into our personal life, it is unlikely that we will be able to sustain our involvemenl in praxis.

Thought without practice is en'pty, practice wrthout thought is blind.

Exercises

l. Relate the notion of ontological shock to a time when your worldview was shaken. How did you respond to the shock? Did it make you more morally sensitive and more likely to act upon your moral beliefs? Explain.

2. The civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s involved the appli- cation of moral analysis to praxis. Malcolm X(1925- 1965) wrote the following about the importance of taking action in the ongoing struggle against racism:

I believe in political action, yes. Any kind of political action. I believe in action period. Whatever kind of action is necessary. When you hear me say "by any means necessary," I mean exactly that. I believe in anything that is necessary to correct unjust conditions-political, economic, social, physical, anything that's necessary. I believe in it as long as it's intelligently directed ancl designed to get results.T

What do you think Malcolm X meant when he said "by any means necessary"? Relate his comments to the concept of praxis.

3. Who is your hero (your hero can be a leal or fictional person)? ls your hero more willing than the average person to engage in serious analysis of his or her own cultural worldviews? More likely to engage in praxis than most people? Explain, using examples to illustrate your answer.

*4.

Overcoming Resistance

Notlting strong, noltirrg new, ttohing uryent peneroes tnon's tnittd t,ithtu (),\.\itrg resisance.

-Ku.rlrr,

Nxrtt.v,rrr. lormer plesitlent ol' Ghana

Discuss your choice of community service in terms of the three levels of think- ing and the concept of praxis. Relate your service learning as well to Mullett's three dimensions of ethical analysis.

Most of us hate to be proved wrong. When a particular paradigm becomes thoroughly entrenched in our worldview, we may begin to see it as fact rather than an interpretation of experience, especially if we benefit by that particular

-HnNnt

D. Lunt, l udo.res (1969)

CIIAP'l'liR 2 Mrtral lleusortittg 37

38 SECTION I The Studl' qf Ethics

Connections What are the

stages of moral develop men|? See Chapter 3, pages 90-94.

worldview For example, when slavery was legal, it was seen as a natural part of the world order by those who benefited from it. Few White people bothered Io analyze or even to question the morality of the practice. Even President Abraham Lincoln did not always support the abolition of slavery in his public statements. In his first inaugural speech, Lincoln reassured the Southern voters that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."8 Fortunately, Lincoln had the moral courage to reevaluate his position on slavery.

To avoid having our worldview challenged, we may use a type of defense mechanism known as resistance. Defense mechanisms are psychological tools, which we usually learn at an early age, for coping with difficult situations. Defense mechanisms can be divided into two main types: (l) coping and (2) resistance.

Healthy Defense Mechanisms

Coping, or healthy defense mechanisms, allows us to work through challenges to our worldview and to adjust our life in ways that maintain our integrity. Healthy ways of coping include logical analysis, objectivity, tolerance of ambi- guity, empathy, and suppression of harmful emotional responses.

Immature Defense Mechanisms

Resistance, in contrast, involves the use of immature defense mechanisms that are rigid, impulsive, maladaptive, and nonanaly'tical, Isolation, rationalization, and denial are all examples of immature defense mechanisms,e Everyone uses defense mechanisms at times to keep from feeling overwhelmed. Children from abusive backgrounds often find it necessary to construct rigid defenses to avoid being crushed by their circumstances. The problem arises, though, when people carry these once-appropriate defense mechanisms into their adult life. When resistance becomes a habitual way of responding to issues, it acts as a barrier to critical analysis of interpretations or worldview (Figure 2,5).

The use of immature defense mechanisms or resistance impedes our moral development. Daniel Hart and Susan Chmiel, in a study of the influence of defense mechanisms on moral reasoning, found a strong relationship between the use of immature defense mechanisms in adolescence and lower levels of

r0

moral development in adulthood.

experiences and ideas that challenge our worldview. This, in itself, can create both anxiety and boredom. Resistance can also numb us to the needs of others, immobilize us in the face of moral outrage, and prevent us from devising a plan of action.

Rather than being prisoners of our past, lve can take steps to overcome immature defense mechanisms, including recognizing which ones we use, that stand in the way of our making effective moral decisions in our lives. In

The habitual use of resistance entails avoiding

FIGURE 2.5 Resistance as a Delense Mechanism

tt:'YAY

Media As/Alanly Stock I'hoto

Res -

Analysis

lnterpretation

Experience

identifying our resistance, we may find that we rely primarily on one type of resistance, or we may have a repertoire of several types depending on the situ- ation. The following are a few of the types of resistance that people are prone to use when their moral views are challenged.

Ignorance There are situations where we are ignorant simply because the infor- mation is not available. Sometimes, however, we avoid learning about particular issues because we just do not want to know. Some people think that not know- ing excuses them from having to think about the issue or take a stand. As a result, problems such as global conflicts and poverty continue to get worse. Igno- rance is regarded as a vice and a hindrance to the good life in virtually all world

you tfe iclea we're on a sinking shipP"

ives

@

CIIAP'f-ltR 2 Mtrul lleu,siuting 39

"What

40 SECTION I The Stu) oJ Ethics

philosophies. Socrates is reputed to have said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Confucius taught that "ignorance is the night of the mind." "Ignorance," writes Hindu Yogi Swami Prabhavananda, "creates all the other obstacles."rr

- ,:,t '

Analyzing Images

1. Has there ever been a time when you've preferred ignorance to being informed? Compare the outcome of your experience to that of the businessmen in the cartoon above.

2. Some people accuse college students of taking the attitude that "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to public life and policies. Do you agree? Support your answer. Relate your answer to the issue of low-voter turnout among young people in national elections.

Avoidance Rather than seeking out people who have different points of view, we may avoid certain people and situations and instead hang out only with peo- ple who agree with us. Some people who hold very strong opinions about certain moral issues, yet are insecure in the face of challenges to their position, only read literature or watch news shows that support their opinion and only attend social and political events, meetings, or rallies attended by people who agree with them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. More and more Ameri- cans over the past three decades or four have been choosing to live in communi- ties of like-minded people and to watch television news shows that support their views.r2 The tendency to avoid controversial situations or people with opinions unlike our own can lead to a serious lack of communication and even hostility between people who hold widely opposing points of view.

Denial Andr Trocme, a leader in the French Resistance in World War II, deflned denial as "a willingness to be seldeceived."r3 During World War II, most Germans tacitly supported the war effort by denying the cruelty of the Nazi policies. Similarly, parents may be in denial regarding their children's destruc- tive lifestyles until it is too late. Mothers in incestuous families may fail to take action to halt the sexual abuse, not because they don't care about their children but because they have convinced themselves that such a terrible thing could not really be happening. Denial is also common in people who are addicted to alco- hol or drugs. Denial keeps people from acknowledging and working on solutions to these pressing moral problems.

Anger We cannot always avoid people who disagree with us. Some people respond by getting angry when they are confronted with a challenge to their views. Anger may be expressed overtly by physical violence or threats, or it may be expressed more subtly in angry phrases such as "don't force your views on me," an expression that implies, ironically, that the person challenging another's

views is somehow threatening his or her autonomy. During a March 20 l6 Trump rally in Chicago, fights broke out between Trump supporters and anti:Trump pro- testers resulting in several injuries and five arrests. The rally was canceled as a result. Anger as a form of resistance is most effective in thwarting disagreement when backed by a large group of supporters or when a person has greater social, political, or physical power.

Not all anger involves resistance. We may feel anger or moral indignation when we hear that one of our favorite professors was denied tenure because he is Arab. Rather than acting as a barrier to analysis, this type of anger may motivate us to correct this injustice by writing a well-argued letter of protest to the local newspaper. We'll look more into the role of moral sentiments in Chapter 3.

Clichs "Don't force your views on me." "It's all relative." "To each his own." "Things always work out for the best." "I have a right to my own opinion." Han- nah Arendt wrote that when Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was challenged Io analyze the contradictions of his society, he became "genuinely incapable of uttering a single sentence that was not a clich."r4 Used sparingly, clichs can be useful for illustrating a point; however, the habitual use of clichs in responding to challenges to our worldview keeps us from thinking seriously about issues.

Conformity/Superficial Tolerance Many people are afraid that they will not be accepted by their peers if they disagree with them. Even though they may actu- ally disagree, they go along with the group rather than risk rejection. For exam- ple, suppose that someone aI a parly makes an offensive ethnic or sexist joke. Rather than speaking up or leaving the room, some people will either laugh or say nothing, thus tolerating and perpetuating the bigotry.

l':F'd;

Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly lrom prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything, and so popular that it will include everyone.

Connections

Why was Eichmann a "good" citizen from the point ofview ola cultural relativ- isI? See Chap ter 6, page 196.

Some people who engage in superficial tolerance really do not have a point of view of their own. The expression "I can see both sides of the issue" often masks a reluctance fo analyze the various and often contradictory sides of a moral issue. Italian poet Dante (1265-1321) had a dim view of people who use this sort of resistance. ln his Divine Comedy, he reserved "the darkest places in Hell" for those who decide to remain neutral when confronted with a moral conflict.

'ol'm Struggling" During the Nazi occupation of France in World War II, the 3,500 people of the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon provided refuge for Jews

-MentN

LurHen KrNc Jn.

CHAPTER 2 Moral Reasoning 4l

42 SBCl'lON I Tlte Stuclt' Ethit's

Connections

Why was Soc- rates put to death by the state? Se Chapler l,

page 7.

who were fleeing the Nazis. In doing this, the villagers took tremendous risks. When Pierre Sauvage, who directed Weapons o the Spirit-a documentary about the resistance movement of Le Chambon-was asked years later why the peo- ple of Le Chambon acted, while others were still struggling about what to do, Sauvage replied: "Those who struggle don't act; those who act don't struggle." It is appropriate to wrestle with moral issues before reaching at least a tentative stand; but for some people, the struggle is used to avoid taking a stand while still creating an appearance of being concerned.

Distractions The use of distractions is a popular means of blocking out con- flicting thoughts. Some people hate silence and being alone with their thoughts, They turn on the television or have loud music playing whenever they are home alone. Or they use alcohol, drugs, food, partying, work, talking on their cell phones, logging onto the Internet, or shopping for things they don't really need as a means of keeping their mind off of their problems. Indeed, some enterpris- ing people have become wealthy marketing distractions to the public.

Mental hindrances, according to Buddhist teaching, keep us from having clear understanding. For this reason, most Eastern philosophies emphasize the importance of stillness and quiet contemplation for achieving wisdom. Putting aside resistance often means experiencing uncomfortable feelings and ideas that we have been defending ourselves against. Because giving up old ways of thinking can be both painful and confusing, people will rarely change without being challenged through lcnowledge perrurbatbn, also known as cognitive dissonance. Knowledge perturbation occurs when our worldview is called into question, thus throwing us into a state of ontological shock, Socrates was a master at knowledge perturbation. It is also practiced by some Eastem philosophers and masters.

Dpes of Resistance

Ressance is the habitual use of immature defense mechanisms when our world- views are challenged.

Ignorance Not learning about a particular issue because we don't want to know.

Avoidance Staying away from people and situations that challenge our worldviews.

Denial Relusing to acknowledge problerns and issues.

Anger Using threats or violence to keep others from challenging our views.

Clichs Responding with trite sayings or expressions when our views are challenged.

Conformity/Superficial Tolerance Agreeing simply for the sake of agreeing. "['m Struggling" Wrestling with an issue as a substitute for taking a stand.

Distractions Turning to diversions to keep from thinking about troubling issues.

a-

Philosophy is a social pursuit. Both the Socratic metl.ocl and the tr-aclitional master-clisciple relationship used in Eastern philosophy provide a supportive context in which the stuclent can engage in self-examination. An experiencecl teacher or supportive friends can help us identify ancl work through our resis- tance by challenging us and offr:ing constructive criticism.

Doublethinl.

Because most people resist analyzing their worlclviews, they may unwittingly get caught up in doublehinl;, a term coined by author George orwell. Doublethink involves holding two contradictory views at the sanre time and believing both to be true. orwell's nrvel I9B4 was wl.itten in 194g, in part, as a warning that, unless we recognize the insiclous role of doublethink in our societ we will continue to head down the path toward destruction.

ln Allan Bloom's book on U.S. colleges and universities,The ctosing tl the

Atnerir:att Mind, the author claims that most students believe morality is relative

and that there are no universal moral values. At the same time, however, these

students profess to believe that human equality and tolerance are universal moral values!

There is one thing a prolessor can be absolutely certain of': almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that tr.uth is relative. . .. Students nowadays are unifed only in their relativisnt ancl in their allegiance to equality. . . . The danger they have been taught to lear t'om absolutism is not error but intolerance. . . . The point is not to correct the mistake ancl be r.eally right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.

Doublethink often takes the form of supporting clouble standards. For exarn_ ple, surveys indicate that most college students believe that women should be the primary caregivers of chilclren, but these students will just as vehemently argue that they believe in equality and freedom of choice for all humans in regard to lifestyle and career. Many people also claim that they believe in animal rights. They point out that they are morally opposecl to hunting or to the mis-

Connections

Wliat are the nroral issues in the debate over'rnimal rights? Sc Chuptcr I l,

pugc,s -l..

treatment of pets. Yet, they have no qualms about products (leather shoes or fur coats).

eating meat or wearing animal

Sometimes, doublethink involves a conflict between our expressed world- view and our actual actions. ln 2006, students at Boston college were up in arms when Bush's secretary of state, condoleezza Rice, was invited fo speak at graduation and receive an honorary degree. Student groups called for the invi- tation to speak to be revoked because the Bush aclministration had such a bad record when it came to the issue of freedom of speech. In other words. the students demanded that Rice's freeclom to speak at gracluation be squelched in order to demonstrate their support of freedom of speech!

To use another example, most teachers, even those who claim to be ardent feminists, treat their female stuclents differently than their male students. They call on the boys more often, praise their accomplishments more often, and are

Cll^P1'IiR 2 lllorLtl llau.sortitrg

43

-_

This molning I saw Gloria coming out olJohn's room.

The average temperature olNarragansett Bay has increased by 3"F in the past fifty years.

Pre s c rpive S.aleme n s

Prescriptive statements deal with values. They tell us what ought b be:

We ougltt to tell the truth to Detective Friday about what happened on campus this morning.

It is wrong to (that is, we ough not to) hurt other people for our own amusement. People ought to keep their promises.

We ought to cut down on our use of fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming.

Moral values are only one type of value. Nontnoral velues include good health; aesthetic values; social values such as power, fame, and popularity; economic values; and political values such as national integrity and solidarity. Only moral values carry the force of r.he ought. Although it would be awfully nice to be healthy, wealthy, popular, and a straight A student, moral values, by their very nature, demand that we give them precedence over nonmoral values when they conflict.

Unlike science, which is descriptive, ethics is primarily presuiptive wilh descriptive statements playing a supportive role. When making moral decisions, we use descriptive statements about the world and about human nature, along with prescriptive statements about moral values. It is important for making an informed moral decision that we first get our facts straight. For example, in the current debate over same-sex marriage, has legalizing same-sex marriage weak- ened traditional marriage, as critics claim it will do?

The social sciences are important to ethics because they systematically test our ideas about human nature and society. Our ideas may be useless, and even harmful, if they are not grounded in reality. For example, many moral philoso- phers in the past have operated on the assumption that women are not as capable of rationality as are men. Domination of women by men was morally

justified on the grounds that women needed the guidance and protection of men. Good intentions alone, in other words, are insufficient to guide our moral decision making.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

English proverb

To use another exarnple, until relatively recently, many physicians lied to patients who were dying. Physicians justified the practice based on their limited experience with a few distressed patients. When properly controlled studies were carried out regarding the effects of knowing the truth, it was discovered that people with terminal cancer actually did better and lived longer if they knew the truth about their condition.r6

Connections

How can the utilitarian cal- culus help us make better moral decisions? S Chupter B, puges 249-252.

-old

CIIAPT'ltR 7 Morul Rca*lting 45

46 SECTION I The Study of Ethics

Ethics goes beyond science and observation, however. We cannot go directly from a descriptive statement about how things are to a statement about how things ought to be. For example, most patients with terminal cancer do better if they know they are dying, but this does not mean that we ought to tell Juan, who is depressed and suicidal, that he has cancer. Similarly, social scientists have found that individuals are more likely to help those who are most like them, but we cannot decide, based on this description alone, that Professor Smith, who is blond and blue-eyed, ought to offer tutoring only to her blond and blue-eyed students. Instead, moral judgments and values-such as "do not lie," "be fair," and "do no harm"-need to be brought into the picture when we are making a decision about the right course of action.

W Exercises

l.

2.

3.

Looking back at the scenario at the beginning of Chapter l, construct an imag- inary dialogue between yourself and the student who took your book bag. You are trying to convince the student to return your book bag. Which statements in the conversation are descriptive and which are prescriptive? Discuss how these two types of statements support each other.

Do you think it is morally acceptable for Professor Smith to give preferential treatment to her blond, blue-eyed students? Would it make any difference if she believed it was right? What if her intentions were "good"? For example, suppose that she genuinely believed that only blue-eyed people had intellectual potential and that it was unfair to give non-blue-eyed people the false hope (by providing tutoring) that they might be able to succeed in college. Support your answers.

Make a list of general guidelines that you use in making moral decisions. Vy'here did you get these guidelines? Compare your list with those of other students in the class. To what extent do the lists correspond to each other? Is there a general theme or themes undering your list of guidelines? If so, what are these themes?

4. Some people claim that knowing what is right is harder than doing what is right. Others say just the opposite: that doing what you know to be right is harder. Which do you find harder? Explain why using specific examples.

5. Discuss a time when you put, or were tempted to put, nonmoral values over moral values. How did you resolve the conflict? Were you satisfied with how you resolved the conflict? Explain.

Recognizing and Constructing Moral Arguments

The very Jrst lesson tha we have a righ to demand that logic shall teach us is how to make our ideas clear; and a mosT imporrail one ir is, depreciated only by minds who stand in need of it.

-Cuenls

SnNoBns PerRc

Ctl^PTER 2 Morul l.eusorting 47

-

Logic

Logic, the study of correct and incorect reasoning, provides us with the meth- ods ancl skills to formulate sound moral arguments and to distinguish good arguments from poor arguments. Logic enables us to analyze lhe logical consis- tencies and inconsistencies of the different ethical theories. Logic also helps us to make better moral decisions. Without correct reasoning, even a person with good intentions can end up causing more harm than good. Although people may be motivated to do what is right, they cannot always figule out n,ltut is fhe best course of action to accomplish this goal.

In addition, there may be times when we know that a person's argument is faulty, but we refrain from speaking out because we cannot figure out exactly what is wrong with the argument. When this happens, we are more likely to back down on our own position or even adopt the other person's and possibly do something that we may later regret. When individuals fail to take appropriate moral action or make a moral decision that they later regret, we call it a moral tragedy. A knowledge of logic helps us to break through patterns of resistance- our own and those of others-and thus avoid moral tragedies.

Recognizing Mo ra I Arguments

The Components of an Argument To distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning, we need to be able to recognize arguments. An argument is made up of two or more propositions; one of these is claimed to follow from or be supported by the others. A proposition is a statement that expresses a complete thought. It can be either true or false. The conclusion is the proposition that is affirmed or denied on the basis of other propositions in the argument. The prem- ise is a proposition that supports or gives reasons for accepting the conclusion. An argument can have one or many premises.

In an argument, we move from the premise(s) to the conclusion through a process known as inlrence:

Premise(s) ----------> lnference Conclusion

There are two types of logical argumen-ts-:>inductive and deductive. In a deductive argument, the conclusion nece,ssaril.y follows from the premises l/the premises are true and the reasoning process is valid. For example:

All killing of unarmed people is morally wlong. Capital punishment involves the killing of unarmed people. Therefore, capital punishment is morally wrong.

In the above argument, we must accept the conclusion as true, if we accept the premises. Of course, not everyone accepts the first premise.

With an inductive argument, the conclusion probabl.y follows from the prem- ises but we can't be 100 percent sure. The stronger and more complete the premises, the strongel the argument. For example:

Murder rates are not signilcantly lower in states that have capital punishment. Therefore, capital punishment is probably not an efl-ective deterrent against murder.

Connections Why is cul-

tural relativisrn basecl on ftrulty logiC/ Scc Cltuper 6, puge.s lt)7-200.

48 SECTION I The Sud, of Ethics

In the above example, we cannot accept the conclusion as necessarily true because there may be other factors at work that influence the murder rate.

Ethical arguments usually contain both descriptive and prescriptive state- ments or propositions. A proposition in a moral argument can also be a lexical definition of a key term. The proposition "lying is any intentionally deceptive message that is stated" gives us a lexical definition of lying. We determine the truth or falsehood of a lexical definition by looking up the term in a dictionary.

Different sentences can express the same proposition. For example, the statements "torturing children is wrong," "it is wrong to torture children," and "Kinder zu qulen ist unmoralisch" are the same proposition because they all express the same thought. Several propositions can be found in one sentence. French philosopher Ren Descartes's famous cogito atgument can be summa- rized in one sentence, "I think, therefore I am," which contains two proposi- tions: "I think" and "I am."

Tips for Recognizing and Breaking down Arguments

The entire argument may appear in either one sentence or several sentences.

The conclusion can appear anywhere in the argument.

Identify the conclusion first. Ask yourself: What is this person trying to prove?

. . .

.

known as conclusion indicators, such as

The conclusion is often, though not always, preceded by words or phrases

therefore hence thus

which shows that for these reasons consequently

.

known as premise indicators, such as

The premises are often, though not always, preceded by words or phrases

because for

since

may be inferred that the reason is that

as shown by

.

Premise and Conclusion Indicators Some arguments contain terms known as premise indcators and conclusion indicators that can help us identify the conclu- sion and the premises. Words such as because, since, andfor can serve as premise indicators. The words therere, thus, hence, so, as, and consequently are examples of conclusion indicators. Indicators signal that a premise or conclusion follows. In the argument "I think, therefore I am," the word therere tells us that the

conclusion is "I am."

The bad news is that not all arguments contain indicators. In addition,

words such as since, for, therere, because, and as can serve as premise or

Underline, or highlight, the conclusion and the premises.

-

^P'l'llR conclusion indicatols in one context but not in another context. For exarnple,

,,ying

Breaking Down Arguments when breaking clown an argument into its com- ponents, if there are no premise or conclusion indicators, it is usually easiest to identify the conclusion first. To do this, we shoulcl ask ourselves: what is the argument trying to prove? Let's look at the following inductive argument fr.om an article by Dr. Joseph collins entitled "should Doctors Tell the Truth?,'

Every physician should cultivate lying as a llne art. . . . Many experiences show that patients do not want the truth about their maladies, ancl that ir is prejudicial to their well-being to know it.l7

There are three separate propositions in this argulxent.

1.fEver.v phvsiciutt should cultivae l.ving a,s a.fine artl 2.lManv experiece.t ,sltottt tltu patiertt,s tlt tto tvan lhc rulh ubou heir ntulutliesl and 3. [(rnany exper.iences show) that it is pre.iudiciul n rlrcir well-being to lttovt 1/ (the truth).1

If you cannot identify the conclusion and there are no conclusion or prem- ise indicators, try inserting a conclusion indicator, such as 1here/re, before the proposition that you suspect might be the conclusion. or try inserting a premise indicator, such as becau.se, before the proposition(s) that you think might be the premise(s). If the argument is not essentially changed by the addition of an indicator, this means that it is in the right place.

1.lEvery ph.vscian shottld cttltivute the.fine art of lvingl because 2. [Manv cxpuicttccs

sltow tlta Pltients do not v,attl he tuh ahou their ntalatliesl ancl because 3. experiences show) that it is preludical to theirv,ell-being o lttotv f (the truth).1

In the preceding argument, the first proposition is the conclusion, ancl prop- ositions 2 and 3 are the supporting premises. The first premise (proposition 2) is a descriptive statement about an empirical fact. In this case, we might want to find out how many patients were surveyed and whether the sample was rep- resentative. The second premise (proposition 3) is also a descriptive proposition. The claim is that knowing the truth will bring harm to the patient in the form of anguish and earlier death.

If the premises are found to be false or logically unrelaterl to the conclusion,

as they are in this algument, then we have a poor argument. However, this does

not necessarily mean that the conclusion itself is false or worthless: It is simply unsubstantiated.

Some arguments have unstated premises. It is sometimes assumed that cer- tain beliefs are so generally accepted that there is no need to state them. ln the preceding argument, there is an unstated third premise regarcling a moral prin- ciple, the principle r'nonntaleficence, also known as the "do no harm" pr.inciple.

becat:;e and rherefire can be usecl in explanations. ln the statement

the food because his chilclren were starving," we are not trying to prove that Ying stole the food; rather, we al.e explaining why he stole the l.ood.

CII

2 Morul ll.eu.sortttg 49

[(may

stole

Connections Is lying always

wrong? Sec

('huptar

10,

pugc.s

-26- -27.

50 SECTION I The Sru,of Ethics

You may be surprised to learn that premises about general moral principles or sentiments are often the least controversial of the premises-an observation that runs contrary to the popular belief that morality is relative and varies from individual to individual.

Rhetoric Many people mistake rhetoric for logical argument. Rhetoric, also known as the art of persuasion, is often used by politicians as a means of promot' ing a particular worldview rather than analyzing it. In logical arguments, we end with the conclusion. Rhetoric, in contrast, begins with a conclusion or position. The rhetorician then presents only those claims that support his or her partic' ular position. The purpose of rhetoric is to win over your opponents through the power of persuasive speech; the purpose of argumentation is to discover the truth. Some people are so emotionally invested in certain opinions on moral issues that they may unknowingly manipulate their arguments to "prove" a con- clusion that does not logically follow from the premise(s).

Constructing Moral Arguments

When constructing an argument about a moral issue, we begin by making a list of premises. Never begin by first stating your position or opinion and then seeking only evidence that supports your particular position in an attempt to persuade those who disagree with you to come around to your way of thinking and to dismiss any conflicting views.

When coming up with premises, it is generally most productive to work with others, especially those who disagree with us. According to Socrates, it is through the process of dialogue that we can test our views and, ideally, come closer to discovering the truth. The following is a summary of the steps for constructing an argument:

l. Develop a list of premis. In a good argument, the premises will be relatively uncontroversial and acceptable to all, or most, reasonable people. Much of the disagreement in moral arguments, as we noted earlier, stems not from disagreement about basic moral principles but from disagreement about empirical facts or the deflnitions of ambiguous key terms, It is important to be able to identify relevant moral principles and ideals; in addition, good moral reasoning depends on first getting the facts straight rather than rely' ing on unsupported assumptions or opinions. Any ambiguous key terms should be clearly defined and used in a consistent manner throughout your argument.

2. Eliminate irrelevant or wealc premises. After coming up with a list of prem- ises, go back and eliminate any that are weak or irrelevant. Resist the temp- tation to eliminate premises that do not mesh with your particular opinion regarding the moral issue. Also make sure that there are no obvious gaps in the list of premises and no fallacies. We will learn how to recognize some of the more common fallacies later in this chapter.

7_

3. c'tnte ro a cort(:lu,eon. The last step in constructing a moral argunrent s clrawing the conclusion. The conclusior.r should take into account the inl.or- mation in the premises but should not state more than what is containecl therein. conclusions that are too broacl include rnore than the prerrises say; conclusions that are too nl'row ignore certain premises.

4. Try ttt ha urgumett tn rher.;. The next step is to try out youI argument. when doing this, be careful not to slip into rhetoric. Rernember. the mark of a good philosopher is to be open-minded.

5. Il.evi:;e.l,our argunlen f'neces.vur.t,. The final step in constructing an argument is to revise it in light ol'l'eedback and additional information you receive. This may involve changing or modifying your conclusion. If your argument is weak, yon should be open to revising it.

Five Steps for Constructing Moral Arguments l. Develop a list ol premises.

2. Eliminate irrelevrnt or weak premises. 3. Come to a conclusion.

4. Tly out your argument on otlters.

5. Revise your rgument i1'necessar.y.

Exercises

L Break down the following alguments into their premises and conclusions. In each ol'the arguments, ask yourself whether there are other premises that might strengthen the argument. Also, think ol' premises that rright be unstatecl but simply assumed in each of the arguments.

a. Racism and sexism are wrong because all people deserve equal respect.

b. It is immoral to use rabbits in cosmetic experiments because causing pain is immoral, and animals such as rabbits are capable of feeling pan.

c. People need to pass a driving test to get a license to drive a car. people should also have to take a test and get a license before they can become a parent. After all, parenting is a greater responsibility and requires more skill than driving.

d. Embryos ale not persons with moral rights. Furthermore, the ernbryos used in stem cell resealch are going to be cliscardecl anyway. Because we have a moral obligation to help people suffering from disease and the use of stem cell research has the potential to help many ol'these people, stem cell research shoulcl be legal.

e. we have an obligation to become the best person we can. one of the primar.y purposes of education is to make us better people. Thefefore, colleges should seriously consider having a community service requirement lor graduation,

CIIAP'l'ItR 2 Mtt'ttl lu,\oning 5l

52 SECI'lON I The Stud.y of Etltics

Connections

On what grounds does W.D. Ross argue that moral duties are prima facie rather than absolute? ,See Chapter 10, pages 331-332.

since community service has been shown to increase students' self-esteem

and facilitate their moral development.

2. Choose one or more of the following controversial moral issues:

a. Reinstating military conscription for men and women between the ages of eighteen and forty-flve

b. Capital punishment

c. Giving legal status to illegal immigrants who came here with their parents as

children.

d. Abortion for sex selection e. Legalization of marijuana

f. Using unmanned drones for assassination

g. Lowering the drinking age to l8

h. The high cost of college tuition

Working in small groups, construct an argument using the five steps listed on page 5 1.

3. Look back at the argument you constructed in the previous exercise. To what extent were you tempted to engage in rhetoric instead of logical analysis by using only those statements that supported your particular opinion on the topic? Did working in a group make it easier for you to avoid rhetoric? Explain.

Avoiding Informal Fallacies

. . . arguments, like men, are ofen prelenders

-Plaro

Most moral arguments are inductive, in part because most moral principles and

that is, they are binding unless they conflict with a pressing moral duty or right. There are several ways in which an inductive argument can be weak or invalid. For example, the premises may be weak or false. When an induc- tive argument is psychologically or emotionally persuasive but logically incorrect, it contains what logicians call an informal fallacy. We are more likely to use fallacies when we are unsure of our position. The use of fallacies may be effective in the short run, but thoughtful people will eventually begin to question the reasoning behind the fallacious argument. Being able to recognize and identify fallacies makes

us less likely to fall victim to them or to use them unintentionally in an argument. In this section, we will look at some of the fallacies that are most likely to appear in moral arguments. As you read through the following descriptions of these fallacies, consider which fallacy or fallacies you are most likely to fall

victim to or to use in an argument regarding a moral issue.

Fallacy of Equivocation

Some words or terms-such as right, duty, or relativism-have several definitions. Most often, the context in which a particular word or phrase is used lets us

rights are prirna

facie;

7_

know which definition is intended; lrowever, this is not always the case. when the meaning of a particular term is unclerr from its context. we refer to it as an ctrnbiguou.r term. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an ambiguous word changes meaning in the course of an argument. For example:

Hans: All people have a right to a minimal level of health care.

Berh: Thar"'s not true. our constitution says nothing about people having a right to health care; therefore, as taxpayel.s we have no obligation to provide it.

In this argument, Hans and Beth are using differing meanings of the word right. Webster's Eru:.1tlopsdic Unabridged Dictionctr-t gives sixty-two different mean- ings of rightl By taking a closer look at their respective arguments, we can see that Hans is most likely talking about rights in terms of moral or human rights, while Beth is using the term to refer to legal rights. Their first task in resolving their disagreement is to agree on which definition of right they wili use.

stephen colbert, host of rhe Lare slow on cBS, frequently makes use of this fallacy as in the following example from the Apr.d29,2006, white House Correspondents'Association dinner in which he equivocates on the worcl slancl:

I stand by this man IPresident George w. Bush]. I stand by this man because he stands fol things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aicraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. Ancl that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound-with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the wor.lcl.

Appeal o Frrce

This fallacy occurs when we use or threaten to use force-whether physical, psychological, or legal-in an attempt to coerce another person to accept our conclusion. The phrase "might is right" summarizes the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind appeal to force. This fallacy is illustrated in the following argument:

Don't disagree with me because if you do l'll slap your #@& face. Don,t forget who's paying your tuition. I'll show you who's in charge arouncl here!

Although most people would not be taken in by such overt threats of vio- lence, others such as children may actually come to believe that might does make right. At other times, the intimidation is more subtle. There may be an implied threat to withdraw affection or favors if the other person does not come around to our way of thinking. However, there is no logical connection between being right and having the power to hurt someone else.

This is a particularly dangerous fallacy, not only because it can lead to injury or even death, but because we are taken in by it more often than most of us like to admit. People who have financial, social, or political power over others may come to believe that they deserve their privileged status. This is particularly troublesome when people who lack power start to agree with their oppressors

Connections

\{hat is the difference between a legal right and a moral right? See Chapter

I I, page 358.

CI'I,{PTBR 2 Morttl Reusoning 53

54 SECTION I TheSndyoJ'Etltics

Connections According to feminist care ethics, how do women usually make moral decisions? ,Se Chapter 3,

pages 95-96.

and become resigned to or even blame themselves for their own oppression and inferior status. The disempowered person may also internalize the message that "might is right" and, in turn, attempt to impose his or her views on others by using force against those who are even more socially disenfranchised.

Abusive Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when we disagree with someone's conclusion, but instead of addressing their argument, we turn and attack or slur the character of the per- son(s) who made the argument. By doing so, we attempt to evoke a feeling of disapproval toward the person, so that disapproval of the person overflows into disapproval of the person's argument, The abusive fallacy is also known as the ad hominem fallacy.

Lila: I think abortion is morally wrong.

Cltloe: You pro-lifers are just a bunch of narrow-minded, anti-choice, religious fanatics who think they have a right to force their reli_ gious morality on others.

Lila: Oh, yeah? Well you pro-choice people are nothing but a bunch of selfish baby-killers who are out to destroy the family and all it stands for!

In the preceding conversation, the issue of the morality of abortion has been completely sidetracked. Instead, Lila and chloe got caught up in slandering the character of the people who hold the opposing view when we call people "narrowminded," "idiots," "fanatics," or "selfish baby-killers," we are dismissing their views without ever analyzing them. (See photo on page 59.)

virtually all great thinkers and reformers, because they chalrenge us to rethink our cherished worldviews, have had detractors who have tried to dis- credit their ideas through character assassination. What distinguishes great thinkers is their ability to remain focused and not be distracte