Ethics: Good Reasoning

William R Madden

Ethics: Good Reasoning

1. Introduction A. Anyone may have an opinion, but if it is likely to be accurate, that opinion should have relevant information used to support it.

2. Arguments A. A collection of information used to support a theory. B. Deductive Argument: Deductive logic can be used to discern cause and effect to predict likely outcomes for an event. C. Truth-preserving rule: The first two parts of a statement, if true, will lead to a conclusion that is also true. This is also known as valid rules. D. Premise: The first two supporting statements. This is used in the truth-preserving rule. E. Valid Deductive Argument: An argument that uses valid rules F. Sound deductive rule:

When reviewing a premise, counterexamples are a good way to determine an arguments validity. A counterexample that can decisively prove validity is most useful. Another method to determine if an argument is sound, is to examine the underpinnings of the argument for faulty assumptions, or for moral reasons that might challenge it. B. Moral intuitions: A position for how to respond to a moral event after careful thought is given over a resolution. A moral intuition is not provable as true, and can be revised if an argument changes an individuals view. C. Causal Generalization: The understanding of cause and effect. This can be misunderstood without an examination of a large sample to establish validity. For example, the conclusion that smoking leads to lung cancer was accepted after reviewing the effects amongst a large portion of the population. Analogy: If a large sample cannot be taken to establish causation, an analogy may point to a similar situation to use as comparison. Slippery Slope: An argument that says small changes can lead to large ones that can be difficult to reverse once initiated. Hand Waving: Making an argument on the grounds that it is common

Questions of Relevance: When reviewing the premises of an argument, determine if it is even related to the thing that is being discussed. Positions that have no relevance to the topic can be discarded. A strawman attack is an example of this, the strawman attempts to blur the intent of the message, clouding the real discourse. F. Fallacy: An argument that forms a weak conclusion. Formal Fallacy: The improper use of deduction to reach a conclusion Informal Fallacy: Faulty or obfuscated premises. Examples are the Ad hominem argument, Faulty Analogy, Questionable Authority, Begging the Question, Equivocation, Hand Waving, Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Ignorance, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, Red Herring, Slippery Slope, and Straw Man. G. Faulty Anology: A comparison that does not validate an argument. H. Questionable Authority: Using a reference that lacks knowledge about the topic being discussed. I. Begging the Question: To skip past the premise of an argument with the belief that the conclusion is true. J. Equivocation: The use of a term with one or more meanings could misrepresent intent. k. Hasty Generalization: A judgement made without sufficient