1 / 12

How to Argue for Moral Premise

How to Argue for Moral Premise. Using Mills, Kant and Rawls to help your arguments. Two types of moral argument. Consequentialist (Utilitarian). Nonconsequentialist (Moral rule). Act only on that moral rule you can will to be a universal law of nature

turner
Télécharger la présentation

How to Argue for Moral Premise

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Argue for Moral Premise Using Mills, Kant and Rawls to help your arguments

  2. Two types of moral argument Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Nonconsequentialist (Moral rule) Act only on that moral rule you can will to be a universal law of nature Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative • An act is good/moral if it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people • John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

  3. Death Penalty Consequentialist Moral Rule If you take a life, you must give a life. So if you kill someone, you must pay with your own life • The death penalty is justified because of its consequences. It deters criminals from committing murder because they know if they kill someone, they will be executed

  4. For your own argument, try to identify one consequentialist (utilitarian) argument and one nonconquentialist (rule based) argument

  5. Arguments About Justice • First, marriage is a private thing concerns the two people who decide to spend their lives together. In this regard, the people concerned have the right and freedom to choose his or her partner. It is not right to intervene in their marriage.

  6. P1: If people have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with, then gay marriage should be allowed • P2: people have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with • C: gay marriage should be allowed

  7. P2: People have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with • How do you defend this claim? • What is a right? • What is your proof that people have them?

  8. Arguments from Authority • Recognized Sources: E.g., United Nations Doctrine on human rights • Authoritative Thinkers E.g., Site the words of thinkers of various traditions • Philosophical Theory: Offer a theoretical defense

  9. Argument from the Authority of Reason • It is not right/unjust to interfere in marriage. • What is just? • John Rawls, Theory of Justice. • Those principles are just which one would choose behind a veil of ignorance where you do not know what your status is in the society

  10. Why is it unjust to discriminate against people of different races? • P1: Those principles are just that would be chosen from behind the Veil of Ignorance, that is, those principles all would choose if they did not know where in the society they would end up • P2: Behind the veil of ignorance no one would choose to discriminate against one race because, in theory, they could be of that race • C: It is not just to discriminate against one race

  11. Gay marriage • Those principles are just which one would choose behind a veil of ignorance where you do not know what your status is in the society • Suppose you did not know whether you would be straight or gay—you would not want to deny yourself the right to marry • So to deprive the right to marry to anyone is unjust

  12. Question • Is John Rawls justice argument a consequentialist (utilitarian) or nonconsequentialist(rule base)?

More Related