Ethics and Critical Thinking about Wolves Argument Analysis

Ethics and Critical Thinking… about Wolves

-Argument Analysis. Basic Argument Form: P 1. Premise (often relies on science) P 2. Premise (ethical assertion) C 1. Conclusion Warning: Warning Not as easy as it looks…….

-Argument Analysis. Critiquing Arguments: Only Two Ways: 1) Mistake in premise 2) Mistake in inference: in going from premises to conclusion

-Argument Analysis 1) Mistake in Premise – example P 1. All U. S. presidents live in the White House P 2. Fred Swanson is the president of the U. S. * C 1. Therefore, Fred Swanson lives in the White House *Note: Fred simply doesn’t have the foreign policy experience to be president

-Argument Analysis 2) Mistake in Inference – example P 1. All crows are black P 2. Heckle and Jeckle are crows C 1. Therefore, Ron Paul will most definitely be the next president of the United States (just you wait)

-Argument Analysis. Order in which to proceed: 1) 2) 3) 4) Lay out argument (hint: get them to do it) Assess inferences Assess premises Lay out counter-argument using 2) and 3)

Nature of Wolves Argument “Wolves kill for fun, they are wasteful, and they are just plain evil”

Nature of Wolves Argument Basic Form: P 1. Wolves are X P 2. X should not be tolerated C 1. Therefore, wolves should not be tolerated

Nature of Wolves Argument Particular Versions: P 1. Wolves are gluttonous / gratuitous killers / evil P 2. Gluttony / gratuitous killing / evil should not be tolerated C 1. Therefore, wolves should not be tolerated

Economic Hardship Args. Livestock - “We work hard to provide food to the public, food they want and need. The public demands cheap food. Our hard-won livelihood would be threatened by outside impact such as wolf reintroduction (or the presence of wolves at a certain population density)” Hunting – “My livelihood, my ability to feed my family, depends upon hunting. The presence of wolves (or a certain population density) will negatively impact my livelihood by either actually reducing the number of animals that my clients hunt, or by making my clients believe that hunted animals are being reduced”

P 1. Wolves have an negative impact on various economic activities (livestock ranching and hunting) P 2. Livestock ranching and the hunting industry are legitimate economic activities C 1. Therefore, wolves have a negative impact on legitimate economic activities. P 3. We ought to reduce/eliminate/not allow for those things which negatively impact legitimate economic activities. C 2. Therefore, we ought to reduce/eliminate/not reintroduce wolves.

Ecosystem Health Arg. “We all want healthy ecosystems. The presence of wolves on a landscape is an indication that we are committed to healthy ecosystems and that we are accomplishing this end”

P 1. We should desire intact / whole / healthy ecosystems. P 2. A healthy ecosystem is one that possesses its full compliment of historic members. P 3. Wolves are historic members of certain ecosystems. C 1. Therefore, wolves are a necessary part of certain healthy ecosystems. C 2. Therefore, we should desire to have wolves in certain ecosystems.

-Hoped-for Results. The basic tools to assess and respond to the various arguments, 2) The basic tools with which to create and assess our own arguments The End… Thanks!