PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1 Course Learning Outcome.docx

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
5. Develop strategies for self-assessment.
6. Evaluate decision-making patterns that result in problem
solving.
7. Detect bias and fallacies in messages from mass media and
other sources.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 13:
Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation
Chapter 14:
Develop As an Ethical Reasoner
Unit Lesson

Ethical Life
Ethics is the study of the good life. There are two components
of this study.
1. What does it mean to live a good life in the realm of human
activity, thought, and action?
2. What does it mean to have a good life? What do I desire, and
how can I bring that
ultimately good life about in my own life?
The responses to these aspects of life are numerous throughout
the history of philosophy. Some philosophers
have focused on the actual aspects of life that relate to these
questions and how you can attain a high level of
ethicality. Others have attempted to ground ethics in something
universal that would make demands on all
humans. Finally, some hav e taken up a specific ethical
viewpoint and then used that viewpoint to analyze the
goodness or badness of ethical issues in various fields of study
and social life.
Most ethical philosophers believ e that there is, or are, universal
ethical principles that make demands on all
humans. This is extremely important and it is where we will
begin. It is common folk wisdom that there are no
universal ethical standards. It is puzzling for many philosophers
to hear students claim that there are “no
universal truths” or that you cannot judge the practices of
another culture because “what they do is right for
them.” Hopefully as you hav e engaged this course you have
been exposed to the fallacious nature of this
thinking. If you were to consistently hold this position, it could

lead to horrible outcomes for the individual. What
is more, it is often impossible for those students to avoid their
own ethical universals when they feel they have
been treated unfairly or violently.
For example, if you were to be robbed at gunpoint, and you
were an ethical relativist, you would not be able to
fundamentally justify calling the police for help. Of course, you
might say that it was his ethical truth to rely on
the police when someone tries to rob another person. Howev er,
the person doing the robbing would be making
the ethical claim that it is acceptable to steal from others using
violent means. The pure relativist would have to
say that the ethical truth for the thief has just as much reality
and import as the truth of the person being
robbed. Should the person being robbed then not call the police
because robbery is truth for the robber?
Almost all humans feel a deep sense of violation and injustice
when they undergo a traumatic robbery. They
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Fallacies: The Art of Mental
Trickery and Manipulation
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title

call the police and express their disgust at the actions of the
perpetrator. All it takes is a gun in your face and
ideas about ethical relativism fly out the window.
Let’s look at another example. Most people in our nation
consider the historical treatment of ethnic minorities in
this country as horrific and wrong. From the decimation of
Native American groups to the importation of
Africans and their subsequent slavery, most people would claim
that this history has been one of fear,
exploitation, violation, and violence. In making these claims,
you are saying that these actions were wrong. In
his article on cultural relativism, James Rachels points out that
the relativist would have to look at this history
and claim that all these actions were morally acceptable back
then and now things are just different. You
cannot say that things are better today, because that would
involve having some universal standard by which
one could judge the rightness and wrongness of society.
However, acts such as the bombing of a Birmingham
church that ended in the deaths of four African American girls
incite a deep revulsion in us as we think about
what our country was like and the hatred that was so socially
rampant. Images of dogs biting youths and
videos of firemen spraying protestors with hoses show us how
far we have come. Of course there is still
repression in our system that needs to be overcome. Conversely,
in the realm of rights, we can definitely say
that we have made some progress in the way that we treat
people in our nation. However, the relativist cannot
say that this is progress. In fact, the relativist would have to say
that the person who bombed that church and
murdered those girls was just acting out his own ethical truth.
By the way, the person suspected of the
bombing was charged only with possession of dynamite, and

this charge was later dropped after an
investigation by the FBI. It seems absolutely unjust that this
man got away with such an atrocious act, and the
fact that those who were sworn to protect the community found
that he had done nothing wrong creates an
even greater sense of the immorality that existed in the system
at this time.
If you are still not convinced that ethical fundamental principles
exist or need examination, then you can stop
reading at this point. For those who are interested in the
philosophical responses to the problem of morality,
let’s look at some ways that philosophers have responded to the
question of the good life.
Socrates/Plato
Most people have at least heard of Socrates and Plato. Actually,
Socrates was the teacher of Plato and we
hav e nothing that was written by Socrates. All that we know
about Socrates was recorded in dialogues that his
pupil Plato compiled over the course of his career. Socrates
appears as a character in these dialogues and
usually confronts others and questions them about fundamental
concepts such as love, justice, truth, holiness,
piety, knowledge, and moderation. Socrates usually runs into
other people in the dialogues and starts up a
conversation with these people. Inevitably some slippery
concept emerges and Socrates (Plato) asks the other
person to define the concept. Socrates finds the definition
inadequate and usually presents a logical refutation
of the definition that the other person has supplied. They go
back and forth for a while (sometimes like 200
pages) and attempt to provide universal, solid definitions for the
concepts in question. Plato is thought to have
recorded some actual dialogues that Socrates had with others,

and most people believe that the Apology is an
accurate account of Socrates’s trial. However, Plato also used
Socrates as a “mouthpiece” for Plato’s own
ideas. That means that Plato presented some of his own
philosophical ideas through the character of Socrates.
Some themes that emerge out of the dialogues can indicate
Socrates’s/Plato’s conception of the good life.
Socrates claims that the unexamined life is not worth living.
Wisdom and the continual pursuit of knowledge
can lead you into the realm of higher being for Plato. This
world is a corrupted model based on the ideal realm
of the forms. The ideal realm is a world in which you would
have pure knowledge of ideal forms of the
conceptual objects that exist on earth. You should strive to
understand the concepts that you use, and part of
the process of the good life is engaging in intellectual analysis
of these concepts. Socrates did not care much
for material wealth or adventures. He claims to have only left
Athens for military service, so he did not travel
much. Instead, he spent a lot of time wandering around Athens
engaging others in philosophical discussions.
In the Apology, Socrates claims that he should receive free
meals as his punishment for all the service that he
provided Athens. He claims that he neglected his business
affairs because he cared more about the states of
Athenian souls.
The good life for Socrates was one in which a person sought
wisdom and critically evaluated his or her
presuppositions in order to come into knowledge of the truth.
This truth seems to lie in another realm that is
distinct from the earth. You cannot trust the sensible world to
provide the truth. Instead, you seek a vision of
the Good in the ideal realm of the forms.

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Aristotle
Aristotle wrote about everything from nature and logic to
metaphysics and ethics. Here we will talk about his
most well-known ethical work called Nicomachean Ethics. In
this work, Aristotle outlines his own response to
the question of the good life. Aristotle claims that all human
actions seek some good. All humans desire one
thing in all their actions, and that thing is happiness. Happiness
here is a translation of the Greek word
eudaimonia, and should be thought of more as “human
flourishing” rather than happiness. Aristotle says that
all human actions try to bring about a state of human
flourishing. So, do not think of someone eating a lollipop
and saying, “Wow I am so happy right now…” as being an
example of Aristotle’s concept of human happiness.
Instead, humans become happiest when they are maximizing
their arête (this word is often translated as
virtue). The word arête is better thought of as “becoming what
you are.” We all have an idea of what we are in
our deepest being. Most of us believe that there are untapped
potentials and abilities that are in us and we
seek to unlock those potentials. Maximizing those potentials is
something that is extremely difficult to do, but

Aristotle claims that the good life is doing exactly that.
Aristotle splits up the virtues into the moral and intellectual
virtues. In the realm of the moral virtues (those in
the realm of action) Aristotle claims that we must choose the
intermediate between the extremes of excess
(too much) and defect (too little). The virtuous act lies in a
mean between the two extremes, and the mean can
differ depending on the person, situation, and temporal context.
For example, one of the moral virtues that
Aristotle speaks of is courage. The courage that is needed for
someone fighting in a war will be qualitativ ely
different from that of someone who has been asked to kill a
snake in the compost pile. However, both of these
events would require courage. Courage is the mean that lies
between the extremes of too much courage
(foolhardiness) and too little courage (cowardice).
Someone who is not afraid of anything is foolhardy, and you
can find numerous examples of this excess on
Youtube or Ebaumsworld. However, if you jump on the couch
and start screaming because there is a Daddy
Long Legs spider walking across the floor, you are showing too
little courage (cowardice). For Aristotle, one
must choose the right amount of courage, in the right place, at
the right time, in the right way, with reference to
the right objects, and in relation to the right people. Some of the
moral virtues that Aristotle mentions are
generosity, courage, friendship, magnanimity, proper pride, and
sense of humor. Maximizing moral virtue for
Aristotle involves finding the mean between the extremes and
continually practicing virtuous acts until they

become habitual.
In addition to the moral virtues, Aristotle also claims that
people must maximize their intellectual virtues.
Aristotle splits up the mind into multiple parts, but we will
focus on the duality of the human mind in relation to
the practical and the theoretical. Aristotle claims that the good
of the practical side of the mind is prudence
(phronesis). Prudence is the ability to bring about the good in
your own life. It involves dealing with concrete
objects and situations and making decisions that lead to an
ultimately flourishing life. For example, those who
were prudent before the economic downturn did not commit
themselves beyond what they could handle
financially. They were able to live within their means and were
able to circumvent the lack of flourishing that
became part of many people’s lives.
The other side of the mind is the theoretical aspect of the mind
and Aristotle claims that the good of this side is
wisdom (sophia). Wisdom is knowledge of fundamental
principles that are grasped through that part of the
mind that is unchanging. In order to properly flourish in the
realm of the mind, you must have “street smarts” as
well as “theoretical knowledge.” It is not enough to just have
street smarts or theory; you must have both in
order to maximize the virtue of your mind.
So, Aristotle tells us that the good life is the maximization of
our actions in the realm of moral virtue, as well as
the maximization of the intellect both practically and
theoretically. The good life is becoming what we know we
are and unlocking those potentials that we see in ourselves.
Stoicism

When a stoic confronts his or her world, he or she sees the good
life being one in which he or she has let go of
all emotional bonds and attachments. This might seem heartless
at first. However, the goal of releasing oneself
Too Little Virtue Too Much
Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
from emotional attachments is to avoid the pains that
necessarily arise when we lose those objects. Epictetus
was a Roman slave in the second century who outlined Stoic
doctrine in multiple writings. He claims that one
should not think of family as loved ones, but merely as
strangers. That way, when they die, you will not be
disturbed. One should live simply and eat meagerly. People
should not go to games (here the gladiatorial
games, but we could translate that to sporting events today), and
if they do go, they should not show much
emotion. One should refrain from using vile language. One
should live justly, prudently, and honorably. One
should keep death in focus, that way one will not get upset
when someone spills wine on the carpet. Thinking
about your own death makes it hard to get upset about the little
things.

Epictetus tells us to do these things so that we will not be
subjected to the emotional pains of existence. When
we care too much about the world we open our lives up to
suffering. The good life for the Stoic is release from
those emotional attachments so that he or she can live
comfortably and peacefully.
Epicureanism/Hedonism
Hedonism is the idea that the good life is one that maximizes
pleasure. Epicurus gets a bad name because he
was affiliated with this idea. However, people would much
rather listen to simple statements about hedonism
than study Epicurus so let’s turn our attention to what Epicurus
actually says about pleasure and the goal of
life. First, you must understand what Epicurus means by
pleasure. In his “Letter to Menoeceus”, Epicurus
claims that pleasure is freedom from pain in the body and
trouble in the mind. This sounds a lot more stable
than those who claim that Epicurean hedonism is life based
around sexuality, drunkenness, and rock n’ roll. In
fact, Epicurus’s own ideas about pleasure align much more with
Stoic ideas than with those who misrepresent
those ideas today.
Epicurus claims that death is the end of all sensation. Epicurus
believed that when people die, their
consciousness turns off and they enter a state of non-
consciousness (dark, dreamless sleep). Because death
is the absolute end of rational and physical existence, Epicurus
claims that we need not fear death. Think of a
night of dark, dreamless sleep and you have the perfect image
of what the afterlife will be. Freedom from the
fear of death is one step in freeing the mind from its own
troubles.

Epicurus claims that you can promote pleasure by eating a
simple diet, having practical wisdom (prudence),
causing trouble to no one, living honorably, living justly,
retiring from the world, having good friends, and
harmonizing with things that you cannot control. You can see
that Epicurus gets a bad name from those who
do not read him. The pleasures that he promotes are more in line
with religious and Stoic conceptions of the
good life. The good life for Epicurus was freedom from pain in
the body and trouble in the mind and you
achieved this through simple pleasures.
Kantian Deontology
Immanuel Kant sought to ground ethics in something universal
that would make demands on all people at all
times. Kant’s goal in his ethical philosophy was to establish the
fundamental principle of morality. Kant
believed that so long as morality lacked this principle, it was
open to perversions and misrepresentations. Kant
also believed that when people mixed the pure moral law with
concrete examples of morality or social
customs, they were not doing ethical philosophy but merely
doing anthropology. Kant’s philosophy is called
deontology, which means duty-based ethical philosophy.
According to Kant, you have a duty to abide by the
moral law. The moral law exists prior to experience (Kant calls
this form of human knowledge a priori
knowledge). It naturally arises out of the will of the human and
the law itself makes demands on that human
will. What is this law? Kant calls this law the categorical
imperative, and he provides at least three formulations
of the categorical imperative in his work The Groundwork for
the Metaphysics of Morality. Here are some ways
that Kant puts the universal law into language.

1. I ought only to act in such a way that I could will the rule of
my action universally.
2. I ought only to act according to laws that I could make
universal laws of nature.
3. I ought always to treat others as ends, never as means.
4. I ought only to act according to rules that I would make if I
were the law- maker of the Kingdom of
Ends.
Kant claims that these are all verbal examples of the universal
law that resides in the human. What do all
these claims mean? Let’s look at three. What does it mean to
treat someone as an end and not as a means?
Well, that basically means that we can never use people. To
treat someone as an end is to recognize that the
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
person has inherent dignity, and that you must promote the
person’s own ends (desires) over your own. You
cannot merely use another human being. People use each other
for sex, rides to the airport, emotional
support, and help with moving, rides to work, help with
homework, or whatever it might be. When we go to

others because we know they will provide for us without any
regard to their feelings or own desires, and we
merely go to them for no other reason than that we know they
will do what we ask, we are using them as
means. Kant claims that this is always unacceptable. You must
think of your actions in terms of how you will
be promoting the desires and goals of your friends, and even
those with whom you are not friends. Now, can
you still ask a friend for a ride to the airport? Of course you
can. However, there is a way to do it that
recognizes the friend as an end (perhaps giving gas money,
writing a thank you note, or taking the friend out to
dinner) rather than as merely a way to get to the airport.
Whenever we use people, we are going against the
moral law that Kant believes lies in all of us.
Let’s look at one now. When Kant says that we should act in
such a way that we could will the rule of our
actions universally, he is saying that we can only do things that
we would permit all people to do in all
instances and times. For example, let’s suppose that you were
thinking about cheating on a test. You could
formulate a rule that would apply to this experience. You could
say something like, “It is universally acceptable
to cheat on tests.” Kant says that we can test the acceptability
of our acts by seeing if we can universalize the
rules of our actions. What would happen in a world where
cheating on exams was universalized? Well, you
can imagine that teachers would take some strict measures to try
to prevent this cheating. Perhaps teachers
would begin giving individual exams and would stand above
each student as he or she wrote the exams. This
is one of hundreds of potential outcomes of this policy, but you
can imagine what a difficult and uncomfortable
situation it would be if each student had to take the exam by
him or herself and was overlooked by the tense

gaze of the professor the entire time (something that appeals
neither to the professor nor the student). It would
be impossible to universalize the idea that you should be
allowed to cheat on an exam. Therefore, according to
Kant, you cannot perform this act. Notice at the same time that
when you cheat, you treat others as means to
your own end of a better grade. You treat your fellow students
and teacher with a lack of respect as well.
For Kant, ethics is the result of a universal principle that arises
from the human will. This principle is called the
categorical imperative. It is the duty of the human to act
according to this principle. Kantian deontology also
focuses on respect between humans and the recognition that the
other human has a worth beyond price. The
good life for Kant is harmony of the will with the categorical
imperative in a life that does not deviate from
abiding by the universal law.
Utilitarianism
The final ethical theory that we will examine here is called
utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill presents a thorough
account of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a value- maximizing
theory that claims that an act is good when it
promotes the greatest amount of something of value.
Utilitarianism is also called consequentialism because it
focuses on the outcomes of actions in determining the best act.
Mill claims that the good that utilitarianism
promotes is happiness. What is happiness? Mill claims that
happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain.
Therefore, according to Mill’s greatest happiness principle, an
act is right when it maximizes happiness or
minimizes pain for the greatest number of people; an act is
wrong when it maximizes pain or minimizes
happiness for the greatest number of people.

Before we think that Mill is reducing us to a bunch of
animalistic pleasure seekers, we must see what Mill says
about pleasure. Mill claims that there are various qualities of
pleasures, just as there are various quantities of
pleasures. Quantity of pleasure refers to the amount. Six hours
of reading Aristotle is better than four hours of
reading Aristotle, because you are able to read it for a longer
period of time. However, qualities of pleasures
differ between various types of pleasures. Mill recognizes that
humans are not animals that will be satisfied
with full bellies and lots of sex. Instead, the higher quality
pleasures include the intellectual, moral, and artistic
pleasures. Humans like to see other humans do virtuous acts,
and we often experience pleasure when we
know we hav e acted virtuously. In addition, no one would trade
a diploma or your knowledge for a week,
month, year, or lifetime at Disney World. This is because we v
alue the intellectual pleasures ov er those of
mere enjoyment. Finally, few would prefer a night of good sex
over 30 years of an intimate and loving
relationship (although people often act the other way when they
are unfaithful). Mill claims that when you are
able to promote the higher quality pleasures in your own life,
that person will experience the best type of life. It
is difficult to come to love virtue, wisdom, and beauty, but if
we can, there is a whole new world of experience
and enjoyment that are possible for the human. Mill also claims
that we should promote these goods in the
lives of others as well. If you have an ethical choice, you must
think of all the factors involved in the choice and
choose the option that promotes overall happiness for the
greatest number. The best types of happiness are

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
those of the higher quality pleasures over the base pleasures.
According to Mill, acting in the world in this way
will lead to equality, flourishing, and the elimination of poverty
and disease.
Conclusion
We have outlined some theories about what it means to live a
good life. This is the most important question
that we all face. How can we live a good life? This question has
multiple answers and often changes
throughout the course of our lives. This question haunts us
when we do not make decisions that align with
what we know we are. This question looms when we make
decisions about our careers, our families, our
friends, and the way we interact in our worlds. All the responses
abov e (and many more for that matter) are
answers to this question. This course has been focused on the
question of the good life and how we can make
decisions that lead to our ultimately flourishing existence. You
are encouraged to think about this question
often, to evaluate your life in terms of what you want, and to
live in such a way that you are open to change
and willing to adapt according to principles that promote not
only your own conception of the good life, but also
the good lives of your friends, neighbors, coworkers, and
strangers. We have all been given specific social and

identity realities. We can only work and interact in what we hav
e been given. Try not to get bogged down in
changing the WORLD, and instead, focus on your own little
world and the ways that you can make those
worlds better. Remember that critical thinking is a method of
evaluating life and decisions that will hopefully
lead to a better existence. It takes years of practice, but
hopefully you all feel that you have an understanding
of the foundations of this mode of thought. Keep reminding
yourselves of those principles and fix your eyes on
the fallacies and deceptions that are inherent parts of the human
mind. This is the way to understand truth and
to make those decisions that will lead to the good life.
Learning Activities (Non-Graded)
To gain further knowledge of the material, including key terms,
please view this HTML presentation. This will
summarize and reinforce the information from these chapters in
your textbook.
Click here to access the lesson presentation for Unit VIII.
Non-Graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in
their course of study. You do not have to submit
them. If you have questions contact your instructor for further
guidance and information.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Gene
ral_Studies/PHL/PHL1010/12J/CriticalThinkingPresentations/U
nit_VIII/CT_UnitVIII.htm

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VI
4. Apply analytical reasoning to a variety of disciplines.
solving.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 10:
Make Decisions and Solve Problems
Chapter 11:
Deal with Your Irrational Mind
To aid in your essay writing, the following video has been
included to assist you.
Columbia Southern University. (2015). Essay writing basics
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://columbiasouthern.adobeconnect.com/essay_writing/
In order for the links below to function properly, you must first
log into the myCSU Student Portal and access
the Opposing Viewpoints in Context database within the CSU
Online Library.
You may also access the resource by visiting the Opposing
Viewpoints in Context database and performing a
search for the title and/or author.
Isacat, B. (2011). Extremist animal rights activists are not
terrorists. In L. Willis (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints:
Extremism.
Thomas, C. (2002). Animal rights activists are terrorists. In H.
Cothran (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints: Animal
Experimentation.
Unit Lesson
Informal Logical Fallacies
An integral portion of critical thinking is learning about
informal logical fallacies that vitiate many arguments
and ideas that surround us. A logical fallacy is a mistake in
reasoning that invalidates the claims that
someone else is making. Fallacious reasoning is false reasoning.
It often mimics logical argumentation in
subtle ways. Certain varieties of fallacious reasoning are so
prevalent that they have been given names.

Many of the informal logical fallacies have Latin names because
many of them were identified during the
medieval period. Learning these names is merely the beginning
of understanding how to recognize them and
combat them in your personal life. It takes hours of work and
experience in order to recognize these fallacies
off the cuff. Hopefully, this lecture will give students initial
insight into some of these fallacies. There are many
online resources for fallacies that students can go to for more
in-depth analysis, examples, and descriptions
of some of the less common fallacies. Our discussion will focus
on those fallacies that are most common in
the hope that this analysis will allow students to understand the
foundations of the most common forms of
fallacious reasoning.
UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE
Making Decisions, Problem
Solving, and the Irrational Mind
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Scapegoating
In the Old Testament (Leviticus 16), the high priest of Israel

would symbolically lay the sins of the whole
nation of Israel on the head of a goat and this goat would then
be cast off into the wilderness. This goat would
carry the sins of the people of Israel off to a place far away
from those who actually committed the sins.
Scapegoating is laying blame for a problem in society on the
heads of a specific group of people. The
scapegoater blames everything on a specific group for no
logical reason. This group often has few
connections to those problems. However, those who scapegoat
care little for logical thinking in relation to
problems. Groups that have been scapegoated in the United
States include ethnic minorities, women, illegal
immigrants, gay people, Christians, Muslims, political leaders,
etc (insert group here). It is easy to blame a
group of people for the problems in a society. However, unless
there are sound reasons to believe that those
problems are caused by that group, then one is merely
scapegoating.
Argumentum Ad Baculum (Scare Tactics)
Scare tactics involve playing on another’s fear in order to get
that person to do something or believe
something to be true. Students often confuse this fallacy with
appeal to emotion (to come later). However,
when someone uses scare tactics, you are appealing only to one
emotion: fear. This form of “argument” often
occurs when someone threatens another person in order to get
that person to agree.
Man with Gun: I think it would be a good idea for you to give
me your purse (points the gun at the
woman’s face).

Woman: I think you are right (as she hands over the purse).
It is evident in this example that the woman must give over her
purse and agree with the proposition that she
should give the thief her purse. It is also obvious that this form
of argument is illogical. However, this
fallacious form can occur in a more subtle manner. For example,
suppose that some students are questioning
the teaching style of a professor. The professor gets upset and
says something like, “I do not care what you
all say. Remember who gives the grades around here.” This
threat is likely to get the students to backtrack in
relation to their original arguments. However, it relates in no
way to the initial claims of the students.
Those in authority often use appeal to force in order to get what
they desire. Imagine walking in on your
married boss engaging in inappropriate sexual acts with another
employee. This boss might swing by your
desk at the end of the day and say something like, “I would
keep my lips closed about what you saw if I were
you…that is, if you care about your job.” The person placed in
this situation would probably not report the
infidelity due to the fear that he or she would lose his or her
job.
It is important to remember that there are non-fallacious forms
of appealing to fear. For example, if you were
on a hiking trip with a friend and the friend told the other
person to watch out because there was a
copperhead snake on the edge of the trail; this would merely be
an example of someone looking out for the
best interest of his or her friend. However, whenever someone
threatens another person or plays on their

fears in a manipulative manner, this person has committed the
fallacy called “Appeal to Force” or “Scare
Tactics.”
Argument from Pity
The argument from pity occurs when someone tries to get
another person to agree with his or her claims by
merely appealing to the person’s pity or empathy. Humans tend
to overestimate the capabilities of others
when they feel sorry for them. If you overestimate another’s
ability based on insufficient evidence as a result
of pity, then you have succumbed to this fallacy.
The appeal to pity is used most often to get people to support a
cause or to give their resources to a cause.
The ultimate examples of appeal to pity are groups that involve
human rights or animal rights. Showing
images of starving children or abused dogs, without providing
logical reasoning about why you should support
the cause, is not enough to present rationally justified reasons
for believing that you ought to contribute to this
cause. It is extremely important to recognize and understand
exactly what the goals of the organization are
before you donate your resources to the cause. The human mind
has the uncanny ability to fill in arguments
where there are none given. For example, if you are shown a
picture of a starving child and hear, “will you
please give me money to help these children?” your mind might
create an argument as to why you should

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
give me money. However, nothing has been said about how you
are going to help these children or if you
even have the means of helping these children. Our minds fill in
gaps. Our minds tell us that suffering is bad,
and that if we can eliminate human suffering with extra
resources, then we should do it. However, it might be
a scam artist with a bunch of repugnant pictures. It is important
to not let an appeal to pity cause us to believe
something irrationally. Students often appeal to pity when they
fail to complete their assignments. It is not fair
to give a student two extra weeks to complete an assignment
because he or she had a cold when there are
five students sitting in class coughing and who have their
assignments completed. At the same time, it is not
a case of appeal to pity to give an extension to a student based
on the fact that she could not attend class
due to her mother’s death. However, it would be fallacious to
give her an “A” on her exam merely because
she was going through such a hard time.
Argument from Envy
The argument from envy occurs when we find fault with a
person or underestimate his or her abilities because
of envy of that person. Humans often do this with celebrities,
people in high power positions, or others they
find threatening. If a person is extremely beautiful, people will
scour the person’s body to find one attribute
that they can point out that will indicate that the person is not
perfect. Let’s look at an example.

Suppose there is a group of awkward male philosophy graduate
students who have decided
to go out after an Aristotle seminar and discuss some of the
details of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics. They enter a drinking establishment and begin
discussing the difference
between actuality and potentiality. They are rather awkward
and, to be honest, not much to
look at. They are smart but are unable to carry on everyday
conversations with people. All
these philosophers happen to be heterosexual and they notice a
group of ladies across the
room. They immediately become even clunkier as they try to
introduce themselves to these
women. Somehow, they convince the women to play a game of
darts with them, and the
beads of sweat dissipate as they become more comfortable and
amicable. Just when our
group of clumsy thinkers hit their stride with the ladies, a group
of undergraduate business
majors walk through the door. These neophytic capitalists are
tall and handsome. Having just
left the gym to go out for the night, their muscles are still
pulsing with vascularity. As they
start ordering $10 glasses of Scotch, the philosophers realize
that these are not your typical
Ramen-noodle undergrads. One especially statuesque and
vascular young man looks across
the room in disbelief as he sees the motley crew of philosophers
with the ladies who are “way
out of their league.” The philosophers see the young man nudge
those around him and point
to the group across the way. He separates from the group and
moves over to the dart board.

Walking right past the bearded imps, he says, “Can I buy you
ladies a drink?” Unfortunately
for our philosophers, the girls they have been talking to have
already noticed the group that
has come in and were waiting for this opportunity. “SURE!!!”
they cry in unison. “We will be
right back guys.” However, they will not be back. Everyone in
the room knows that they will
not be back. As the philosophers are left alone they look across
the room and begin to speak
to one another about what just happened.
Now, if these philosophers are the critical thinkers that they
claim to be, they would respond in a manner that
would be appropriate in a comedic movie. The critical response
would be to say something like the following:
“Well guys, we did our best, but I think we need to move on. I
mean, those guys are better
looking than we are. Their biceps are bigger than our beer guts.
They look like they just came
back from Cabo, whereas we all look like we have just survived
a polar winter. Plus, it seems
like they have a lot of money. I just watched one of them pay
$120 for a round of drinks.
None of us have even had $120 in our bank accounts for the
past five years. They seem to
be making the ladies laugh a lot more than we were, and I am
positive that if I were a woman,
I would make the same decision. Because we really want people
to be happy and want to
promote the good for all people, we must be happy for those
ladies that they were able to
meet such a great group of guys.”

However, such a response would take a heroic show of critical
thinking strength. What is the more likely
response? Probably something like:
“Who do those guys think they are? I bet we are smarter than
those guys. They seem like they are
jerks. I mean, honestly, who spends that much on alcohol? What
a waste of money. They must not
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
care at all about all the homeless people who are wandering the
streets of Chicago on this cold night.
I cannot believe that those girls would even want to hang out
with such arrogant and heartless idiots!”
Whenever we respond to the strength, beauty, success, or
happiness of others in this manner we are
succumbing to the argument from envy. It is always extremely
difficult to admit that others are smarter, more
beautiful, stronger, more caring, more humble, more loving,
more giving, more interesting, and more
entertaining than we are. However, when we resort to negative

talk about these people that is not based on
anything factual, we are merely showing that we have no other
way to deal with our envy of those attributes
than to attempt to find something wrong with the strengths of
others.
Appeal to Pride/Ego
The appeal to pride is a fallacy that we are all familiar with. We
called this “brown-nosing” when we were
younger. In the appeal to pride, someone tries to obtain favor
with another or manipulate another by
complimenting the person or appealing to the person’s ego.
Let’s examine some examples.
Student to professor: “Dr. Martin, I am really sorry that I have
only been able to come to one
of the first 14 classes of the semester. I have had some things
going on in my life. That one
class was amazing though. You are the most entertaining and
intelligent professor I have this
semester. I know it says in the syllabus that you do not accept
late homework, but do you
think there is any way that I could turn in my late homework
assignments?”
In this example, the student appeals to the ego of the professor
by telling the professor that she is the most
intelligent and engaging professor he has had all semester.
Unfortunately, this student has not presented any
reasons why the professor ought to allow him to turn in his
homework assignments late. That means that the
professor has no logical reason to allow the student to turn in
his assignments late.

Professor to students on the day of course evaluations: “Alright
everyone, we are going to
finish class with course evaluations. Let me just say that you all
have been one of the
brightest, liveliest, and most interesting bunches that I have
ever had. You are much better
than my other classes. Oh yeah, feel free to grab another piece
of pizza on the way out of
class!”
Using flattery is a great way to get people on your side. Weeks
of poor teaching and antagonism with
students can often be overcome with just a few sentences and
some large pepperoni pizzas. Notice that the
teacher said nothing about the evaluations or about what was
accomplished in the course. He does not have
to. All he has to do is tell the students how smart and engaging
they are, and his work is done. It is extremely
hard to make a poor statement about another person when you
have just told him or her how smart he or she
is. However, when we take this as the reason why we OUGHT
to give that person a good review or analysis
of character, we have fallen victim to the appeal to pride. When
a commercial tells us that only those of
superior refinement will appreciate the quartz-chronos
technology of a certain type of watch, and we buy the
watch because we think that we are those who have that sort of
refinement, we are succumbing to the appeal
to ego. Alcohol companies claim that those with “superior
taste” choose their product every time. Appealing to
people’s concepts of their own intelligence and refinement is a
great way to get them to buy your product.
Place a sign on the door that says “Only Those in Proper Attire

Permitted” and you are guaranteed to obtain a
crowd of individuals that want to separate themselves from
those who lack the “proper attire.”
Guilt Trip
Humans are extremely susceptible to feelings of guilt. Nietzsche
called the feeling of guilt the bad conscience.
Freud explicated his concept of the Super-ego and its role in
monitoring the “ego” and “id” as if it were an
internal voice of parental admonition. Kant claimed that the
purpose of reason was to create a good will in us,
and that reason would limit our happiness below zero if it
recognized that we were doing something that went
against the universal claims that lead to the good will. Whatever
the foundation of guilt in human experience,
it is one of the most prevalent and easily manipulated human
emotions. A guilt trip occurs when someone
tries to make another person feel bad about an action without
presenting any logical reasons why the person
should feel bad.
Son to Mother: “I really love Carla and I am going to marry her.
She makes my life better.
She is there for me emotionally when I need her. She is happy
in her career. She accepts
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title
that I do not make a lot of money. She makes me laugh, and I
want to spend the rest of my
life with her!”
Mother to Son: “You are tearing my heart out son! I guess Mom
does not matter anymore. It
is ok. I was only in labor for 96 hours, and then had to sacrifice
my career and my own life
just to raise you. Do not worry about it though…I will be fine
shriveling up like a prune all
alone. I just hope they find me after I die before I start to rot.”
Our mother in this example does not seem to be presenting any
real reason why her son should not marry
Carla. Instead, she merely tries to make her son feel guilty for
his decision. When parents scold their children,
they often merely try to make the children feel badly about what
they have done. There is often not a lot of
explanation as to why the children should feel guilty. If we tell
our kids that we are disappointed that they did
not clean their rooms and they should be ashamed of
themselves, we are putting on a guilt trip. If we tell our
children that they need to clean their rooms because they need
to learn how to keep their environment clean,
that it displays a care for the aesthetic condition of the spaces
that they inhabit, that it will make them good
living partners when they have to live with others, and that it
will make their lives easier as they will more
easily be able to find their possessions, then we have given
good reasons for cleaning and we have avoided
the guilt trip.

Groupthink Fallacy
Groupthink occurs when people of a group hold specific beliefs
merely because those beliefs are thought to
be fundamental thoughts of the group. If we do this because we
have rationally thought about all the issues
and we have decided that this group has the best position on all
the issues, then we are thinking critically.
However, if we only cling to these ideas because we identify
with the group, and fail to submit these ideas to
rational analysis, we are not thinking critically. One area in
which the groupthink fallacy is most pronounced is
in politics. Rather than examine multiple perspectives and
sources on issues, people who are hardline
conservatives (group #1) or progressives (group #2) spend most
of their time taking in news sources that
cater towards their own beliefs. They listen to two-minute
interviews with “experts” on the matter, and then act
as if they have spent hours researching the best positions on the
issue. Really they are merely parroting what
they have heard on TV. Those who align with the group learn
the most common positions of the party and
they refuse to take on any other perspective than those of the
majority in the party. Even when they internally
disagree with a position that their party has taken, they refuse to
allow themselves to accept a contrary
position, because it does not follow the majority opinion of the
group.
Groupthink is also manifest in nationalistic behavior. A
majority of people in a country find that their own
country is the best country in the world, that their food is the
best, that their people are the best, that their art
is the best, that their wine is the best, and that the people in
their country really understand what is going on

in the world, while those in other countries could learn a lot
from them. It is acceptable for the critical thinker
to be patriotic, but when that patriotism turns into thinking that
refuses to accept other cultural ways of doing
things or differences of opinion based on nothing but the fact
that these differences come from a place
outside the borders of your own country, the person has fallen
into the groupthink fallacy. Advertisers and
shrewd business people have realized that sewing a flag onto an
object is a sure-fire way of getting people
with these tendencies to buy the product. Whether it is a t-shirt
with an American flag or a coin that displays
the image of the Twin Towers and Seal Team 6, one thing is
certain: patriotic images and concepts sell.
Manufacturers do not sell items with flags on them because they
care about the spread of patriotism; they do
it because they know that they will sell more baseball hats if
they stick a flag on them than if they do not. It is
important for the patriotic critical thinker to remember that
patriotism is only a hop, skip, and a jump away
from nationalism, and nationalism is dangerous to your thought
and to those who fall outside the group in
which you think.
To aid in your essay writing, the following video has been
included to assist you.
Columbia Southern University. (2015). Essay writing basics
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://columbiasouthern.adobeconnect.com/essay_writing/

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Online Library.
Isacat, B. (2011). Extremist animal rights activists are not
terrorists. In L. Willis (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints:
Extremism.
Thomas, C. (2002). Animal rights activists are terrorists. In H.
Cothran (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints: Animal
Experimentation.

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV
3. Formulate questions that result in critical thinking.
solving.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 5:
Standards for Thinking, pp. 91-103
Chapter 6:
Ask Questions That Lead to Good Thinking
Chapter 7:
Master the Thinking, Master the Content
Please review the PowerPoint presentation below from the CSU
Success Center to help guide you:
Columbia Southern University. (2014). PowerPoint best

practices. Retrieved from
http://columbiasouthern.adobeconnect.com/powerpointbestpracti
ces/
Online Library.
Bryjak, G. J. (2005). Executions should be televised. In M. E.
Williams (Ed.), Current Controversies. Capital
Punishment.
Muhlhausen, D. (2013). The death penalty deters crime. In J.
Cromie & L. M. Zott (Eds.), Opposing
Viewpoints. The Death Penalty.
Weil, J. (2013). The death penalty does not deter crime. In J.
Cromie & L. M. Zott (Eds.), Opposing
Viewpoints. The Death Penalty.
the Academic OneFile database within the CSU Online Library.
Leche, P. (2009, June). Say what. Policy & Practice, 67(3), 36.

UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE
Mastery of Critical Thinking
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Unit Lesson
Rhetorical Devices
Often when humans receive information from other sources,
those sources seek to influence the people. The
art of influencing people through language is called rhetoric.
Rhetoric is used in both written and spoken
language. Nothing is more powerful in persuasion than effective
arguments that are presented with rhetorical
excellence. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech
would have been much less effective if he had
walked up on the stage and said, “All people should have equal
rights and consideration….Thank you.”
Instead, Dr. King utilized metaphorical language and captured
the audience through his impassioned and
emotional style. Rhetoric is extremely useful for those who
practice it well, and just like all good things, it can
be used in a way that is manipulative and injurious. In this

lecture, we are going to examine some of the
rhetorical devices that people use to manipulate others’
thinking.
Depending on your perspective and life experiences, words will
take on different shades of meaning. In addition,
by the mere addition or subtraction of one word, you can change
the perceived meaning of a sentence drastically,
even when the sentence factually says the exact same thing.
Let’s look at an example. Suppose someone said
the following:
“Can you believe that Juan has three kids?”
Most people would interpret the perspective of the speaker as
one of disbelief at the fact that Juan has three
kids. Many people could not imagine trying to complete the
activities of their lives with the added responsibility
of three children. However, let’s change the preceding sentence
with only one word and see what happens to
the meaning of the sentence. Suppose that same person were to
rephrase the previous statement in the
following way:
“Can you believe that Juan has only three kids?”
With the addition of the word “only,” the entire rhetorical
meaning of the sentence has shifted. In this second
example the tone of the speaker has gone from amazement to
expectation. If you were to ask a group of
people about the life of the speaker you would probably often
hear the response that this person has more
than three kids. Parents with five, six, or seven children might

look at others who have three children from this
perspective. Let’s imagine Vanessa and Juan work the same job,
and Vanessa continually outperforms Juan.
Juan often leaves work early to pick his kids up, or do other
school related activities. Meanwhile, Vanessa is
the mother of five children and she regularly has to stay at work
to pick up the slack that is left over when Juan
leaves early. Vanessa might critique Juan’s excuses because
Juan “only has three kids,” while another co-
worker who has no children might be amazed that Juan can
accomplish so much with all the extra
responsibility. This example gives us insight into how words
can connote different meanings depending on how
they are delivered and the audience to whom they are delivered.
Now let’s look at some of the rhetorical
techniques of which the critical thinker must be aware.
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
A euphemism is a positive word that is used to express
something that is negative or neutral. People use
euphemisms in subtle ways depending on the situation. For
example, if you were to attend the wake of a close
friend after he lost his wife, you might say, “I am sorry that Iris
has passed. At least we know she is in a better
place.” In this example, “passed” and “being in a better place”
are euphemisms for the word “dead.” Very rarely
would someone try to console another by saying, “I am sorry
that Iris is dead.” In another example, you might
claim that he is “big-boned” rather than saying overweight. In
either case you have substituted a positive word
for something neutral. However, euphemisms can be used to put
a positive spin on something negative as
well. When companies have large-scale firings of their
employees they call it “downsizing.” When someone is
killed in battle, those doing the killing often can claim that “the

target has been eliminated.” One hears news
anchors say, “16 U.S. soldiers died in a skirmish on the Afghan
border.” Any time that 16 people get killed this
extends well beyond the idea of a skirmish. The word
“skirmish” would be more effectively used to describe a
middle school fight in the hallway after lunch, not to depict a
large scale military battle. In any case, a
euphemism is something that is used to put a positive spin on a
concept or event that is neutral or negative.
A dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism. A dysphemism
is a negative word that is used to describe
something that is neutral or positive. For example, calling a
Democrat a “Lib” or a Republican a “War Hawk”
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
would be examples of negative spins on neutral terms. Referring
to someone’s dorm room as a “pig sty” is
another example. In relation to our previous example about
death, referring to someone as “worm food” would
never be something that one with any compassion would say to
someone who was grieving over the loss of
this person. Calling an atheist a “God-hater” does not represent
the person’s beliefs in a neutral light.
Dysphemisms are used to direct someone’s mind to negative
connotations when thinking about an issue or

another person, and both euphemistic and dysphemetic language
pervades the language of life and media.
Euphemism Neutral Word Dyphemism
Progressive Democrat Lib
Fluffy Overweight Fat
Public Servant Police Officer Cop
Pre-owned Used Bucket of Bolts
Freedom Fighters Soldiers Rebels
Rhetorical Definitions
Another common rhetorical technique involves defining things
based on emotive language that evokes strong
responses in those viewing the definitions. Rhetorical
definitions are these types of definitions. Rhetorical
definitions are not true definitions. Instead, they define terms
using figurative or provocative language in order
to promote certain ideas about the thing being defined. These
definitions are popular in political debates and
other social issues, and they are often used in a way that
demeans or belittles the other side. Here are some
examples of rhetorical definitions.
should pay for all the irresponsible

people.
bored.
Stereotypes
A stereotype is an over-simplified general belief or statement
made about a certain group of people. We are
all familiar with various ethnic and political stereotypes.
However, if you believe in those stereotypes, you are
falling into uncritical reflection. Stereotypes are always based
on a lack of experiences and information. For
example, if someone gets robbed in a specific neighborhood in
Chicago, you might claim that “the people in
that neighborhood are thieves.” Really, most humans are not
thieves, only a few are. Just as one bad apple
can spoil the whole bunch, one bad experience can spoil the
human mind and make it engage in
stereotypical thinking. Stereotypical thinking influences humans
in ways that are often subconscious. If
someone has a stereotypical belief about certain types of
people, that belief will translate into different
behaviors based on the group with which one interacts.
Whenever your mind encourages you to engage in stereotypical
thinking, it is important to think the following:
“Does this belief represent all members of the group that I am
thinking about?” In all cases, the answer will be
no. There will always be members of the group that fall outside
of the stereotype. There are smart and
unintelligent people of all ethnicities. There are hard-working
and lazy humans of all classes. There are
athletic and non-athletic members of all groups. Enjoying
certain activities has nothing to do with your sexual
preference. Refuse to let your mind be influenced by

stereotypical thinking by focusing on the attributes of
humans individually. Avoid making general comments about
pretty much everything. Focus on specific details
and work to eliminate stereotypical ideas through the continual
questioning of presuppositions. It is difficult to
fight against this mode of thought. However, in the long run the
person who avoids stereotypical thinking will
come into more knowledge of the truth and refuse general
answers that over-simplify the human experience.
Innuendo
Innuendo is a rhetorical technique whereby someone implies
something without directly stating what is being
implied. The person speaking leaves something out but is still
able to get his or her point across. Innuendo is
often used to liven up written works and it often adds humor to
situations. However, it is also a subtle way to
manipulate people. Here are some examples of saying things
without stating them directly.
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
“At least one person here is not a liar.”

If you were mediating between Daniel and Celeste, and Daniel
made this statement in the course of the
mediation, it would be evident that Daniel was implying that
Celeste was a liar and that he was telling the
truth. However, notice that the statement does not say who the
liar is. It also does not claim that
anyone is telling the truth. In fact, if both people were lying the
statement would still be true.
“You should choose another pair of jeans.”
We often use innuendo to round off the harsh edges of
statements. For example, you might say this rather
than, “those jeans do not look good on you” so as to avoid
hurting the feelings of the person who is trying on
the jeans.
“Whoever ‘borrowed’ my DVD collection last week, please feel
free to return it as soon as
possible.”
Signs like these are regular occurrences in dorms around the
U.S. Here the person is using the word
“borrowed” to represent the fact that the collection was stolen.
The person is also implying that there is a
certain standard for proper motives when it comes to taking
someone else’s DVD collection.
Loaded Questions
A loaded question is one that has certain presuppositions that
lie underneath it. Loaded questions force a

person into a corner by assuming certain things about the person
or the subject that is being discussed. Here
are some examples of loaded questions.
Lawyer to defendant on the stand: “Mrs. Rose, why did you lie
to the police?”
Lawyer to defendant on the stand: “Mrs. Rose, what did you do
after you killed your husband?”
In the first example, the question is worded in such a way that it
assumes that Mrs. Rose lied to the police. It
seeks the motivation for the lying. In the second example, the
question assumes that Mrs. Rose killed her
husband. If Mrs. Rose is not quick on her feet she might
respond to the question in such a way that it makes
her appear guilty. For example, if Mrs. Rose were to say, “I
went to church…I mean, wait a minute…I did not
kill my husband!” the uncritical jurors would begin to wonder
about Mrs. Rose.
Bully to other student: “Do your parents know you are an
idiot?”
In this example, if the second student says “no” that would
mean that his parents were unaware that he is an
idiot. If he were to say “yes” then that would mean that they
knew that their son was an idiot.
Another form of loaded question is based on the circumstances
in which you find yourself. These questions
are usually created as attention grabbers for people who are
trying to solicit others. For example, in Chicago

you might be walking down a narrow sidewalk and see someone
in the distance smiling and waving. As you
get closer the person says, “Do you have five minutes for
women’s rights (or animal abuse, or starving
children)?” If you respond by saying “yes” then you are forced
to stop and listen to the little spiel that ultimately
is about you giving money to the cause. However, if you say
“no” to this question, then you appear heartless
as if you cannot give five minutes of your time to abused
women, starving children, or abused animals.
In order to escape a loaded question, you must not respond to
the question, but to the assumptions that
underlie the question. For example, Mrs. Rose should say, “I
did not lie to the police” and “I did not kill my
husband.” In the example with the bully, the other student
should respond by saying, “I am not an idiot.”
The last example is harder to get out of. You could say to the
other person, “that is a loaded question”
and then try to explain the assumptions that underlie the
question. However, that would take your time
anyway. Perhaps you could say, “women’s rights is an
extremely important issue, but I do not have time
right now.” A final, more cynical response involves the use of
innuendo. You might retort, “how much are
they paying you to ask these questions.”
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title
Suggested Reading
After reading the articles, use some of the skills that you have
learned in the class readings. What
questions should you ask about the topic that use the elements
of thought?
To gain further knowledge of the material, including key terms,
please view this HTML presentation. This will
summarize and reinforce the information from these chapters in
your textbook.
Click here to access the lesson presentation for Unit IV.
Non-Graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in
their course of study. You do not have to submit
them. If you have questions contact your instructor for further
guidance and information.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Gene
ral_Studies/PHL/PHL1010/12J/CriticalThinkingPresentations/U
nit_IV/CT_UnitIV.htm

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1 Course Learning Outcome.docx

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1 Course Learning Outcome.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de aryan532920

Mais de aryan532920 (20)

Último

Último (20)

PHL 1010, Critical Thinking 1 Course Learning Outcome.docx