Evaluating Moral Arguments

1. A statement is a.an assertion about morality. b.an assertion without a truth value. c.an assertion that something is or is not the case. d.a claim that cannot be verified.

2. The utterance “Abortion is morally permissible” is a.an exclamation that expresses approval. b.not a statement. c.a statement. d.an implied statement

3. In this argument—“(1) Premarital sex is morally permissible because (2) it makes people happy”—statement 1 is the ______; statement 2 is the ______. a.conclusion; premise b.premise; conclusion c.main argument; premise d.implied premise; stated premise

4. An argument in the logical sense is a a.heated exchange of views. b.group of statements, one of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. c.group of statements, all of which make an assertion of some kind. d.group of unconnected statements.

5. In an argument, the supporting statements are known as ______; the statement being supported is known as the ______. a.inferences; conclusion b.premises; deduction c.premises; conclusion d.indicator words; conclusion

6. These words—because, given that, due to the fact that, and for the reason that—are a.conclusion indicators. b.statement indicators. c.statements. d.premise indicators.

7. Deductive arguments are a.supposed to offer probable support for their conclusions. b.usually valid. c.usually invalid. d.supposed to give logically conclusive support to their conclusions.

8. A valid deductive argument with true premises is said to be a.strong. b.sound. c.fit. d.cogent.

9. Inductive arguments are a.intended to supplement deductive arguments. b.intended to be abductive. c.supposed to offer only probable support for their conclusions. d.supposed to give logically conclusive support to their conclusions.

10. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, then the a.argument is cogent. b.conclusion is not necessarily true. c.conclusion may or may not be true. d.conclusion absolutely has to be true.

11. A strong inductive argument with true premises is said to be . a.strong. b.cogent. c.valid. d.invalid

12. This argument [If the dog barks, something must be wrong; something must be wrong; therefore the dog will bark.] has the form of a.denying the antecedent. b.modustollens. c.affirming the consequent. d.hypothetical syllogism.

13. What is the implicit premise in the following argument? Argument: Same-sex marriage is contrary to tradition. Therefore, it should never be allowed. a.Same-sex marriage is harmful to society. b.Same-sex marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned. c.Whatever causes harm to children should not be allowed. d.Whatever is contrary to tradition should not be allowed.

14. A moral statement is a a.statement affirming that an action is bad or that a person is bad. b.statement asserting a valid moral argument. c.statement asserting that a state of affairs is actual (true or false) but not assigning a moral value to it. d.statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one’s motive or character) is good or bad.

15. A statement asserting that a state of affairs is actual (true or false) without assigning a moral value to it is a: a.nonmoral argument. b.nonmoral statement. c.valid statement. d.strong statement.

16. What is the implied premise in the following moral argument? Argument: The war did not increase the amount of happiness in the world. So the war was morally wrong. a.If a war is immoral, it must be considered morally wrong. b.If a war does not increase the amount of peace in the world, it must be considered morally wrong. c.If a war does not increase the amount of happiness in the world, it must be considered morally wrong. d.Some wars increase the amount of happiness in the world.

17. What is a possible counterexample to the following moral principle? Moral principle: Lying is always wrong. a.In some cases, if lying can save a person’s life, then lying would not be morally wrong. b.Lying to cheat your friend out of money is morally wrong. c.Lying to save yourself from embarrassment is wrong. d.In some cases, if lying can save a person’s life, then lying would still be morally wrong.

18. The fallacy of assigning two different meanings to the same term in an argument is known as: a.begging the question. b.equivocation. c.straw man. d.appeal to ignorance.

19. What is the fallacy used in the following passage known as? Passage: If same-sex marriage is legalized, young people will assume that being gay is socially acceptable, and that will lead them to give into the temptation to become gay themselves. And being gay can ruin their lives. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. a.straw man b.slippery slope c.appeal to the person d.appeal to ignorance

20. What is the fallacy used in the following passage known as? Passage: No one can prove that a fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. So a fetus must be accorded full moral rights as soon as it is conceived. a.appeal to ignorance b.appeal to the person c.slippery slope d.faulty analogy

21. What is the fallacy used in the following passage known as? Passage: Liberals believe in abortion on demand, which means that killing a baby is permissible any time at all. At conception, in the second trimester, at infancy—any of these would be appropriate times to kill a baby, says the liberal. a.appeal to the person b.begging the question c.straw man d.equivocation

22. What is the fallacy used in the following passage? Passage: John argues that active euthanasia is sometimes morally acceptable. But we can reject out of hand anything he has to say because he’s an ultraconservative. a.equivocation b.begging the question c.appeal to authority d.appeal to the person

23. The fallacy of drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group is known as: a.hasty generalization. b.begging the question. c.slippery slope. d.faulty analogy.

Actions that disrupt the day-to-day functioning of a society are morally wrong. Taking the possessions of others without permission disrupts the day-to-day functioning of American society. The “dumbest girls” took the Girl Scout cookie money without permission. Therefore, the action of the “dumbest girls” was morally wrong. Inductive or deductive? Valid? Sound?

“A fundamental principle of critical reasoning is that we should not accept a statement as true without good reasons” (44). What distinguishes a good reason from a bad one?

Taking the possession(s) of another person without that person’s permission is illegal. The “dumbest girls” took the Girl Scout cookie money without the permission of the girl selling the cookies and the Girl Scouts. Therefore, what the “dumbest girls” did was morally wrong. Inductive or deductive? Valid? Sound?

Stealing money is morally wrong. The “dumbest girls” stole money from the girl selling Girl Scout cookies. Therefore, what the “dumbest girls” did was morally wrong. Begging the Question.

Most people believe that taking the possession(s) of another without permission is morally wrong. The “dumbest girls” took the Girl Scout cookie money without permission. Therefore, what the “dumbest girls” did was morally wrong. Are the premises true? Is the form valid?

“We cannot reason that a moral statement must be true because a nonmoral state of affairs is actual” (54).

Taking the possession(s) of another person without that person’s permission is always morally wrong. The “dumbest girls” took the Girl Scout cookie money without permission. Therefore, what the “dumbest girls” did was morally wrong. Valid? Sound?

To be “deserving” of something, is to be “worthy” of the thing. Each individual person deserves sole proprietary interest in his/her body and the fruits of the labor of his/her body. Someone who maintains proprietary interest is the only one who can transfer that proprietary interest to someone else. If one receives proprietary interest that is freely given by another, the receiver is “deserving” of the proprietary interest. To claim proprietary interest that has not been freely given is immoral. The 9-year old girl has proprietary interest in the $168 because it is the fruit of her labor. The “dumbest girls” are not deserving of proprietary interest in the $168 because it is not the fruit of their labor, and they cannot claim to have proprietary interest in the $168 because it was not freely given by the 9-year old girl. Therefore, the “dumbest girls” do not deserve the $168 and committed an immoral act when they took the $168.

An act is morally right when it produces a greater amount of good for a greater number of people than would have been created had the act not been performed. As a result of the “dumbest girls” taking the Girl Scout cookie money, the 9-year old girl made significantly more money from cookie sales than she would have made had the “dumbest girls” not stolen the money; the news media had a more compelling newscast than they would have had had they not stolen the money; and PHIL 20 students have an situation for ethical analysis that is more entertaining than the ones they would have if the girls had not stolen the money. Because the action of the “dumbest girls” produced a greater amount of good for a greater number of people than would have been created had they not performed this action, their action was morally right.

There is no objective truth. Consequently, there is not objective standard by which one can judge the truth-value of a moral claim. If follows that all judgments about the truth-values of moral claims are determined by the individual person making the judgment. Because there is no objective standard against which the truth-value of individual moral claims can be judged, all moral claims are equally true. Therefore, the “dumbest girls” were both morally right and morally wrong for taking the cookie money.

How can we make moral decisions while being open minded? If one is open-minded, one considers fairly all information and viewpoints relevant to a moral issue, critically evaluate the integrity of the arguments offered, and be willing to change his/her mind if necessary when making moral decisions. Lenny is open-minded. Therefore,……… If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.

Should smoking marijuana prohibit a person from employment? If smoking marijuana interferes with a person’s ability to perform the essential functions of a job, then smoking marijuana is grounds for denying a person employment. Smoking marijuana does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform the essential function of a job. Therefore, smoking marijuana does not serve as grounds for denying a person employment. Denying the Antecedent If P, then Q. Not-P. Therefore, not Q. (invalid)

Denying the Consequent If P, then Q. Not-Q. Therefore, not-P. (valid) If smoking marijuana interferes with a person’s ability to perform the essential functions of a job, then smoking marijuana is grounds for denying a person employment. Smoking marijuana is not grounds for denying someone employment. Therefore, smoking marijuana does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform the essential functions of a job.

If smoking marijuana does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform the essential functions of a job, then smoking marijuana is not grounds for denying a person employment. Smoking marijuana does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform the essential function of a job. Therefore, smoking marijuana does not serve as grounds for denying a person employment. If smoking marijuana interferes with a person’s ability to perform the essential functions of a job, then smoking marijuana is grounds for denying a person employment. Smoking marijuana interferes with a person’s ability to perform the essential function of a job. Therefore, smoking marijuana serves as grounds for denying a person employment. Modus Ponens (affirming the antecedent) If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q. (valid)

Should animals be used for medical research? Non-human animals have less intelligence than humans. Therefore, animals should be used for medical testing. Unexpressed assumption? Valid? Sound? Precision problems?

Evaluating Moral Arguments