PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx

PHIL 2306: Intro. to Ethics
Components of an Argument
Professor J. Welsh
Components of an Argument:
An argument is made up of two or more propositions, one of
which is claimed to be supported by the
other.
A proposition, in logic, is a statement that expresses a complete
thought. Propositions can be true or
false, and the same proposition can be stated in different ways.
example:
“Torturing children is wrong” is the same content as “It is
wrong to torture children”
There are two types of propositions:
conclusions—a proposition that is affirmed or denied on the
basis of the other propositions.
premise—a proposition that provides reasons or support for the
conclusion.
ore than one premise.
sometimes then used as a premise to establish
the soundness of another conclusion.

conclusion(s) is known as inference:
evidence. Inference is only justified if the
evidence is related to the conclusion in the right way. Logic is
what identifies how evidence and
conclusions must be related in order for us to claim that the
evidence supports the conclusion.
the premises.
In a good argument, the premises must be strong enough to
support the conclusion and withstand
challenges.
Ethical arguments may contain different types of propositions
as premises:
—tell us what is.
—tell us what ought to be; that is, they
deal with values. Normative
judgments and moral principles are prescriptive statements.
—sometimes premises are merely definitions of
key terms that may otherwise be
ambiguous, due to having different possible meanings.
—a comparison based upon similarities between two
things or events . In logic, analogies
are used to support the conclusion that because things are
similar in some important respects,
they are also similar in other respects.

Rhetoric vs. Logical Argumentation:
We distinguish logical argument from what is called rhetoric.
toric is a means of defending a particular worldview or
opinion, rather than analyzing it.
with rhetoric begins with a “pseudo-
conclusion” or opinion.
ir using only those
statements that support their particular
position, disregarding any statements or facts that do not.
view through the power of
persuasive speech, whereas we say that the purpose of a logical
argument is to discover the
truth.
Analyzing Arguments:
We analyze arguments, first, by breaking down the argument
into premises and conclusion.
One page 51 in the textbook, Boss lists several tips for
recognizing and breaking down argument.

Tips for Recognizing and Breaking Down Arguments
(Judith Boss, Ethics for Life 4th ed., p. 51)
several sentences.
in the argument.
person trying to prove?
words or phrases known as conclusion
indicators, such as
therefore
hence
thus
which shows that
for these reasons
consequently

words or phrases known as premise
indicators, such as
because
for
since
may be inferred that
the reason is that
as shown by
Breaking Down Arguments Exercises: (Judith Boss, Ethics for
Life, p. 54-55, #1)
Instructions: Break down the following arguments into their
premises and conclusion. It is usually
easiest to first bracket the propositions. Then circle the
conclusion indicator and the premise indicators.
Next, identify the conclusion and then identify the premise(s).
In each of the arguments, identify the
type of statement that makes up each premise: definition,

prescriptive, descriptive, analogy.
1. Racism and sexism are wrong because all people deserve
equal respect.
2. It is immoral to use rabbits in cosmetic experiments because
causing pain is immoral, and animals
such as rabbits are capable of feeling pain.
3. People need to pass a driving test to get a license to drive a
car. People should also have to take a
test and get a license before they can become a parent. After
all, parenting is a greater responsibility
and requires more skill than driving.
4. Embryos are not persons with moral rights. Furthermore, the
embryos used in stem cell research
are going to be discarded anyway. Because we have a moral
obligation to help people suffering from
disease and the use of stem cell research has the potential to
help many of these people, stem cell
research should be legalized.
5. We have an obligation to become the best person we can.
One of the primary purposes of

education is to make us better people. Therefore, colleges
should seriously consider having a
community service requirement for graduation, since
community service has been shown to increase
students’ self-esteem and facilitate their moral development.
Once you learn how to break down an argument, there are other
skills you can develop in thinking and
reading critically that are important to understanding and doing
philosophy:

Analytic and Critical Analysis of Arguments
(From Judith Boss, Analyzing Moral Issues, 3rd Ed.)
will be clearly defined at the beginning of
the paper. Circle the key terms and underline their definitions.
r counterarguments. Some writers
list not only their own premises, but
also the other prevailing arguments which run counter or are
different from their own. If this is the
case, you need to identify what is the argument the writer is
making, and what are the arguments

the writer mentions only as means of distinguishing her own
argument. You can mark
counterarguments, for example, by placing a CA in the margin
next to where they occur in the text.
ading again
and ask yourself:
(correct facts? well-run studies?)
principles) consistent with our most
fundamental moral beliefs and intuitions? Have all the relevant
moral premises and issues
been included?
→ are any of the key premises based upon incorrect data or
unacceptable prescriptive
statements?
→ are there any logical fallacies involved?
→ if analogies are used, are the similarities morally relevant
of counterarguments?
→ does the writer take the counterarguments seriously, or
dismiss them too quickly?
→ has the writer considered the practical implications of his or
her conclusions?
→ are there other implications that you would not accept?

ood argument?
→ can the argument still stand on its own if you weed out the
weak, contradictory,
and fallacious premises?
→ if the argument cannot stand on its own, you should reject
the argument no matter
this doesn’t mean
the conclusion is
false, but only that the writer has failed to support it.
Constructing Arguments:
Similarly, you can use your analytic and critical reading skills
when you construct your own arguments.
In addition, here is a general outline of the process for
constructing an argument:
Steps for Constructing an Argument
(Judith Boss, Ethics for Life, 4th ed., pp. 53-54)
1. Develop a list of premises
→ Premises should be relatively uncontroversial and acceptable
to most reasonable people.
→ Include the relevant moral principles and ideals, and be sure
to use only supportable facts—not

mere opinion.
→ Be sure to define all key terms that could be ambiguous.
2. Eliminate irrelevant of weak premises
→ Eliminate any weak or irrelevant premises
→ Resist the elimination of a premise merely because it does
not support your personal opinion on
the issue.
→ Make sure you have included all relevant information
→ Make sure your premises do not contain any fallacies
3. Come to a conclusion
→ The conclusion should not include more than what is
contained in the premises, but should
account for all of the relevant information contained in the
premises.
4. Try out your argument on others
→ Resist the urge to slip into rhetoric if your argument comes
under critical analysis
→ A good philosopher is willing to revise their argument if it
turns out not to stand up to challenge.
5. Revise your argument if necessary
→ Include any additional information in the premises
→ Change or modify your conclusion in light of new
information or feedback from others.
Constructing Moral Arguments Exercise: (Boss, Ethics for Life,
4th ed, p. 55, #2)

Instructions: Choose one of the following controversial moral
issues. Next, construct an argumentative
essay of 5 or more substantial and organized paragraphs using
the five steps listed above. Then, try
your argument out on others from the class using the Moral
Argument Discussion Board. Participate in
the discussion, providing at least two other students with
feedback (try to choose those who have not
received feedback yet). Revise your argument, if necessary, in
light of any feedback you get.
1. The use of capital punishment.
2. The practice of partial-birth abortion.
3. Legalization of marijuana.
4. Mandatory HIV testing of college students.
5. Banning alcohol use on college campuses.
BASIC FORMAT FOR AN ARGUMENT ESSAY
The below is a basic format to follow if you are new to creating
an argumentative essay. There are more
elaborate ways to create arguments once you get the hang of a
basic argument structure. For the below
think of a “block” as a block of text—at least one paragraph but
there may be more paragraphs on the
same topic, so long as breaking into paragraphs makes sense
otherwise:

A. Introductory Block
I. Introduce the general “context” of your thesis. For example,
what types of views are there on
the general topic related to your thesis? What types of
implications are related to the position
anyone takes on the topic of interest related to your thesis?
II. What is your position? This is the conclusion to your
argument. State this as a coherent thesis
statement. Be sure it is clear and not too broad or too
ambiguous.
III. What are the premises you will be discussing and
supporting that led you to your conclusion?
Just state them briefly here. You will have to elaborate on them
and support them within the
body of your argumentative essay.
B. Definitions and relevant theories Block (could also be a part
of your introductory block)—potentially
optional.
I. What are the primary concepts or key terms relevant to
understanding your conclusion and/or
the argument you are making?
II. What background knowledge or theories does the reader

need to know in order to understand
your conclusion and/or the argument you are making? This
could and often should also include
relevant counterarguments (arguments and theories that compete
with the argument you are
making), which you then address as you are writing your essay.
C. Premise 1 Block
I. State your first premise.
II. Define any key concepts or background theories that are
central to understanding your
premise.
III. Explain and discuss your premise so that there is no
question in the reader’s mind what you
are claiming.
IV. Provide strong evidence or good logical reasons for your
reader to accept the truth of your
premise.
D. Premise 2 Block
I. State your second premise.

premise.
are claiming.
premise.
E. Further Premise Blocks (optional)—you will include as
many premises as you need to support your
conclusion.
I. State your premise.
premise.
are claiming.
premise.

F. Closing Block
I. Restate the primary contextual information for your
argument.
II. Restate your conclusion given that context.
III. Restate, with your conclusion, a brief statement that
captures each of your premises.
IV. Discuss any significant implications of your conclusion.
(Examples: Discuss any further
relevant issues related to your conclusion that one might be led
to explore if your conclusion is
correct; discuss any changes in the way people behave or the
way parts of our social system
function that would need to be made to be consistent with your
conclusion; etc.)
This should be written in a formal academic style.
Your paper should be:
-5 pages
h 1-inch margins

-point Times New Roman or Arial font
-checked
Word or PDF file format.
you to push the quality of your writing
one step further.
Grading criteria include:
ways to organize a philosophy paper,
depending on what you are trying to do in the paper.)
o an opening paragraph with your overall summation, thesis, or
conclusion (What is the big
point you are trying to draw out? or argue for? Or argue
against? And how will you do
what you propose to do?)
o a second paragraph, if needed, to define the key concepts and
finish framing the overall
issue
o at least two to three paragraphs that elaborate on the
supporting points for your overall

summation or thesis which was stated in the opening paragraph.
Clear examples, studies
and/or good reasons can be used here to directly bolster your
supporting points.
o a concluding paragraph that restates what your main point was
and what you just did to
support it.
—this goes along with
organization; however, if your paper
is outwardly organized but is illogical or presents
contradictions, it still lacks logical flow.
Drawing out the relation between ideas, theories, or concepts
also falls under “logical flow”. Use
transitional language to guide the reader and remind the reader
where you are in your overall
plan for the paper. For example, you may use phrases like “I
just elaborated how it is that . . .
and now I would like to address . . . .” or “The reason this is
important is that . . . .” and so on.
guage—this includes the proper choice of words,
and explaining things with enough
specificity to make your meaning clear.
—a reader trained in academic English
should be able to easily follow the

construction of your sentences.
terms.
—you chose a question or topic to address that is
relevant to the topic choices
provided in the assignment.
—be sure to cite any sources from which you drew
your ideas, and be sure to use
quotation marks appropriately. There is no shame in drawing
from the work of others so long as
it is minimal, and acts only as an adjunct to the main ideas, the
bulk of which should be your
own.
—you use only strong evidence and you attribute
any claimed facts to the appropriate
persons. Any summaries of the ideas or statements of others are
done without particular bias (in
the spirit of generosity).

Identifying Informal Fallacies: (Boss, Ethics for Life, 4th ed.,
pp. 55 -67)
An informal fallacy is a logically incorrect inference.
Arguments that contain informal fallacies are
oftentimes persuasive because of the psychological or emotional
effect of the fallacy, even though the
improper reasoning warrants our disregarding of the argument.

Informal Fallacies Exercise: (Judith Boss, Ethics for Life, 4th
ed., pp. 66-67)
Thirteen Informal Fallacies
(Boss, Ethics for Life, pp. 65)
1. Equivocation—a key term shifts meaning during the course of
an argument.
2. Appeal to Force—Force, threat of force, or intimidation is
used to coerce our opponents into accepting
our conclusion.
3. Abusive—We attach our opponent’s character rather than
address his or her conclusion.
4. Circumstantial—We argue that our opponent should accept a

particular position because of his or her
lifestyle or membership in a particular group.
5. Appeal to inappropriate authority—The testimony of someone
who is an authority in a different field is
used as support for our conclusion.
6. Popular appeal—The opinion of the majority is used as
support for our conclusion.
7. Hasty generalization—Our conclusion is based on atypical
cases.
8. Accident—We apply a generally accepted rule to an atypical
case where the rule is inappropriate.
9. Ignorance—We argue that a certain position is true because it
hasn’t been proven false or that it is false
because it hasn’t been proven true.
10. Begging the Question—The premise and conclusion are
different wordings of the same proposition.
11. Irrelevant conclusion—Our argument is directed at a
conclusion different from the one under
discussion.
12. Naturalistic—We argue from what is to what ought to be the

case.
13. Appeal to tradition—We argue that something is moral
because it is traditional.
Instruction: Identify the fallacy in each of the following
arguments. Also, drawing from the definitions
of the fallacies, say why you think it contains that particular
fallacy. Once you are done, take the
Informal Fallacies Quiz (where you choose the best of the
multiple options given) which is found in the
Ethical Position Writing module.
1. The United Nations inspectors were unable to prove that Iraq
did not have weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Therefore, we can be pretty certain that
Iraq does have WMD.
2. Capital punishment is morally acceptable because murderers
should be put to death.
3. Euthanasia is wrong because it interferes with the natural
dying process. We should wait until it is
our time to die.

4. I’m not surprised you’re arguing that hate speech should not
be banned on college campuses. After
all, you’re one of the most hateful, racist, and insensitive
people I’ve ever met. Why, you couldn’t
care less about the effect of hate speech on its intended victims.
5. I support racial profiling and the questioning of all Arabs by
security officials in airports. Remember,
it was Arabs who blew up the Twin Trade Towers. They just
can’t be trusted.
6. Why all this concern about the way women are treated in
Afghanistan? After all, women in this
country still suffer from discrimination in the workplace.
7. My parents used to get into arguments all the time, and they
ended up getting divorced. Logic
teaches people how to make arguments. Therefore, if you want

a happy marriage, you should stay
away from logic.
8. “The bullying and humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraid is,
as George W. Bush said, ‘a strain on our
country’s honor and our country’s reputation’ . . . . but let us
also recognize what this scandal is not.
There is a large difference between forcing prisoners to strip
and submit to hazing at Abu Ghraib
prison and the sort of things routinely done under Saddam
Hussein. This is a country where mass
tortures, mass murders and mass graves were, until the arrival
of the U.S. Army, a way of life.”
9. It is morally wrong to cause pain to another person.
Therefore, dentists are immoral people.
10. My philosophy professor doesn’t think that the loss of
animal and plant species due to the
destruction of rain forests is going to permanently upset the
balance of nature. Therefore, it is
morally acceptable to continue clearing rain forests for cattle

grazing.
11. “Soldiers at Fort Carson, Colorado, have been told that if
they don’t re-up [reenlist] to 2007 they will
be shipped pronto for Iraq.”
12. So you’re going to argue in class that alcohol should be
banned on campus. Well, this is the last time
we’re going to ask you to go out with us on the weekend.
13. How can you be in favor of human cloning? After all,
you’re a Catholic and the church supports a
ban on all human cloning.
14. Terri Schiavo’s physicians were unable to come up with any
evidence that she had any change of
recovery from her persistent vegetative state. Therefore, she is
clearly brain-dead and, in such
cases, it is morally acceptable to detach her feeding tube.

PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx

PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx

Semelhante a PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx (20)

Mais de mattjtoni51554

Mais de mattjtoni51554 (20)

Último

Último (20)

PHIL 2306 Intro. to Ethics Components of an Argument Pro.docx