Almost everything you need to know… Chapter 12, Part 1 MORAL REASONING Almost everything you need to know… © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Important to remember: For now, “moral” means “not nonmoral” Doesn’t mean “not immoral” © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. The difference? Placing a knife in a drawer is a NONMORAL act. Placing a knife in your roommate’s eye is an IMMORAL act. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

So here, “moral” just means “having to do with morality.” Say that last part again? So here, “moral” just means “having to do with morality.” “MORAL REASONING” refers to reasoning that applies a MORAL PRINCIPLE to a specific case. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Okay. Let’s start at the beginning. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

A “value judgment” judges the merit of something. A “moral value judgment” judges the MORAL merit of something. Example ………………….> © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Which is out of place? He wanted a lot. He got what he wanted. She gave him what he wanted. She gave him more than he deserved. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

“She gave him more than he deserved” judges the merit of her action. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

And which of these is out of place? Children should respect their elders. Stealing is wrong. Moore is a good person. Moore is an effective teacher. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

That last item is a value judgment, but not a MORAL value judgment: Children should respect their elders. Stealing is wrong. Moore is a good person. Moore is an effective teacher. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

But not about Moore’s MORAL merits. “Moore is an effective teacher” is a judgment about Moore’s merits as a teacher. But not about Moore’s MORAL merits. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Divide into two groups of two: “Jason is the world’s best poker player.” “Susan dresses really well.” “It’s wrong to invade another country.” “Dog, you should be nicer to your kid brother.” © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Reds are value judgments not about moral merit. Blues are moral value judgments. “Jason is the world’ best poker player.” “Susan dresses really well.” “It’s wrong to invade another country.” “Dog, you should be nicer to your little brother.” © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Quiz: Which of these are value-judgments? Lizards make fine pets. The haircuts at Supercuts suck. You can buy a toilet snake at True Value for under $20. Texas leads the nation in executions. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

And which of these are value-judgments? Air consists mainly of nitrogen and oxygen. Fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming. Global warming is a terrible thing. Bonaparte was the greatest general in modern times. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

And which of these are value-judgments? Atlanta is sultry in July. Six Flags has dangerous rides. Al Sharpton has a good sense of humor. Eugene dresses way better than Polly. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Which are MORAL value-judgments? If she had any decency, Sam wouldn’t smoke around her kids. Sandy, you are lazier than a hedgehog. Wow, what a tasty meal! Cheating on your girlfriend is beneath contempt. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Some moral value judgments are GENERAL statements. Examples: “Stealing is wrong.” “You should keep your promises.” © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Which of these are general statements? It’s not right to smoke around kids. Sandy shouldn’t smoke around her kids. Harold was wrong to cheat on his girlfriend. Cheating on your girlfriend is beneath contempt. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

One little piece of terminology: A “moral principle” is just a general moral statement. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Okay: Moral reasoning mostly consists of applying a general moral principle to a specific case. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. General moral principle For example: It’s wrong to smoke around kids, and Sam smokes around her kids. So Sam is doing something wrong. Specific case Note: DEDUCTIVE reasoning! © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Okeedokee. Moral reasoning logic principle # 1: Similar cases are to be treated in similar ways. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. For example: If I let one kid take quizzes with book open… …then I must let the next kid do the same. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Moral reasoning logic principle # 2: If you seem to be treating similar cases differently, then the burden of proof is on YOU to explain why the cases really are NOT similar. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. For example: If I let blue-eyed kids take the Quizzes with their books open… …then it is up to me to show why blue-eyed kids should be treated differently. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Interim review Immoral v. nonmoral Value judgment Moral value judgment Moral principle Moral reasoning MR logic principle # 1 MR logic principle # 2 © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Often the general moral principle is UNSTATED. Example: “He promised he would marry you, so he better not back out now.” Unstated general principle: One should keep one’s promises. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Supply a general moral principle that makes this argument valid: He kicked his dog. He did something he shouldn’t do. Unstated general principle? One shouldn’t kick dogs. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Supply a general moral principle that makes this argument valid: “Hey! You shouldn’t say that! It will hurt her feelings.” Unstated general principle? One shouldn’t say things that will hurt others’ feelings. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Supply a general moral principle that makes this argument valid: He’s only a child, so he shouldn’t be exposed to explicit sexual reading material. Unstated general principle? Children shouldn’t be exposed to explicit sexual reading material. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Supply a general moral principle that makes this argument valid: The checker undercharged you for that bottle of wine. You should inform him! Unstated general principle? You should inform a person if he/she undercharges you. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Supply a general moral principle that makes this argument valid: Ms. Jones can do anything Mr. Smith can do, and he’s willing to hire Smith. So he should be willing to hire Jones. Unstated general principle? People with equal abilities have an equal right to be hired. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Right on. So now, the obvious question is: WHICH general principles are the correct ones? These are the more important schools of thought. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. We will refer to these as: Basic Perspectives in Ethics. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. First, an exercise. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Page 457, Exercise12-8, # 2. Is Shelley treating similar cases similarly? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

She seems NOT to be doing so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on her to show there’s a difference between the two cases. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Page 458, Item # 9. Is “Graybosch” treating similar cases in a similar way? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

So he must show there’s a difference between the two cases. Seems NOT to be doing so. So he must show there’s a difference between the two cases. (c) Erica S. Leeds © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. What might he say to show there are differences between people and dogs that would legitimize experimenting on dogs but not on people? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Page 458, Item #10. What should Bork say? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Bork doesn’t say his children have more right to happiness than do other kids. He can AGREE with his critic, and simply respond that others owe their children as much as he owes his kids. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Most people think it’s morally okay to hunt deer for sport… …but don’t think it’s morally okay to hunt humans. So what are the relevant differences that would make it okay in the first case? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

Which of the following are NOT relevant differences morally? “Deer can be eaten.” “It’s more challenging to hunt deer.” “It’s against the law to hunt people.” “God created people in his image.” “Deer aren’t one of us.” …? © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. Summary: REASONING has an important role in moral thinking. It requires deductive logic. Involves applying general principles to specific cases. If we seem to be treating similar cases differently, the burden of proof is on us to explain how they are different. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.

© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved. And if we… Can’t provide a decent general principle, or Can’t explain a relevant difference between two similar cases… …then we should rethink our position. © 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.