Ethics INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS Introduction to Ethics What

Ethics INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

Introduction to Ethics �What is Ethics Morality & Ethics Moral Philosophy/Ethics Some Classic Moral Problems Some Moral Questions �Ethical Assessment & Value Focus of Ethical Assessment Value

Introduction to Ethics �Spectrum of Morality Introduction Absolutism Objectivism Relativism Subjectivism Moral Nihilism Moral Skepticism

Introduction to Ethics �IV Ethics & Other Normative Areas Introduction Ethics Religion Law/Rules Etiquette Aesthetics Distinct

Ethical Reasoning �Moral Issues Issue Ethical Issue Resolution Components of An Ethical Issue �Facts Relevant Facts Agreement & Disagreement Resolution of Factual Issues

Ethical Reasoning �Concepts Relevant Concepts Agreement & Disagreement Resolution of Conceptual Issues �Morality/Values Morality Resolution �Values & Facts Value Statements/Matters of Value Factual Statements/Matters of Fact

Ethical Reasoning �Objectivity & Subjectivity Objective Statement Subjective Statement Objective-Subjective Dispute

Argument Basics

Argument Basics �Argument Concepts Defined General Assessment: Reasoning General Assessment: Are the Premises True?

Deductive Arguments �Introduction to Deductive Arguments Defined Use Assessment Valid/Invalid, Sound/Unsound �Some Common Valid Deductive Arguments �Reductio Ad Adsurdum Defined Form #1/Form #2 Example

Inductive Arguments �Introduction to Inductive Arguments Defined Assessment Strong & Weak Arguments

Analogical Argument �Introduction Definition Uses �Form Informal Strict Form � Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R. � Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R. � Premise 3: X has property Z as well. � Conclusion: Y has property Z.

Analogical Argument �Assessment The strength of the argument depends on � The number of properties X & Y have in common. � The relevance of the shared properties to Z. � Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities. Example

Argument from/by Example �Introduction Defined �Form Informal Form Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P. Premise 2: Example 2 is an example that supports claim P. Premise n: Example n is an example that supports claim C. Conclusion: Claim P is true.

Argument from/by Example �Standards of Assessment Standards � The more examples, the stronger the argument. � The examples must be relevant. � The examples must be specific & clearly identified. � Counter-examples must be considered.

Argument from Authority �Introduction Defined Use �Form Premise 1: Person A is an authority on subject S. Premises 2: Person A makes claim C about subject S. Premises 3: Therefore, C is true.

Argument from Authority �Assessment Standards � The person has sufficient expertise in the subject. � The claim is within the expert’s area of expertise. � There is an adequate degree of agreement among experts. � The expert is not significantly biased. � The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. � The authority must be properly cited.

Logical Consistency(General) �Concepts & Method �Responding �Ethical Relativism, Subjectivism & Nihilism

Consistent Application (Normative) �Concepts, Assumptions & Method �Responding

Reversing the Situation(Ethics) �Method �Considerations �Responding

Argument by Definition (General) �Method �Assessing Definitions �Responding

Appeal to Intuition �Method �Responding

Applying Moral Principles(Ethics) �Method �Responding

Applying Moral Theories (Ethics) �Method �Responding

The “Playing God” Argument(Ethics) �Method �Responding

The Unnatural Argument(Ethics) �Method �Responding

Appeal to Consequences(Normative) �Method �Responding

Appeal to Rules(Ethics) �Method �Responding

Appeal to Rights (Ethics) �Method �Responding

Mixing Norms �Method �Making the Connection �Considerations �Responding