doing ethics
Dr Gonzalez
PHI2604
Chapter three Study Guide
This study guide is a map to help you prepare for the exam and does not include everything we covered in class or from the reading.
Arguments –passages that present reasons for a claim; or a claim defended with
reasons. Arguments are comprised of one or more
premises and
a conclusion. So, an argument is a group of statements or premises that are offered in support of the conclusion.
Premises are
statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons for accepting another statement, the conclusion.
The
conclusion is the statement in an argument that the premises are intended to prove or support.
A
statement is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false. For a statement to function as a premise it must make a claim. Commands, reports, rhetorical questions, illustrations, and explanations are not premises.
Premise indicators
since (nontemporal meaning)
as indicated by
because
for
in that
as (noncomparison meaning)
may be inferred from
given that
seeing that
for the reason that
inasmuch as
owing to
Conclusion indicators (therefore, thus, it follows that, consequently, hence, which means that, so…)
therefore
wherefore
accordingly
we may conclude
entails that
hence
thus
consequently we may infer
it must be that
whence
so
it follows that
implies that
as a result
The Principle of Charity
Deductive Argument—an argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that follows necessarily from these premises. Deductive arguments often begin with a general claim and proceed to specific claims: ‘All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. If one accepts the premises then one must accept the conclusion. [Don’t forget that in the spirit of Socrates we can always reject a premise and call for a definition and challenge a definition with a counterexample.]
Inductive Argument—an argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not necessarily follow from them. Premises are provided as evidence in support of the conclusion, that is premises are intended to make the conclusion more probable. [
causal reasoning and
empirical generalizations in inductive argumentation]
Empirical Generalization (in inductive reasoning), reasoning from a limited sample to a general conclusion (the opposite of deductive argumentation), that is reasoning from a limited sample to a general conclusion based on this sample.
Causal Reasoning, a form of inductive reasoning in which an event (or events) is claimed to be the result (the cause) of another event (or events). [re: This type of reasoning was challenged by the skepticism of David Hume, e.g., light switch example I gave you. For causal reasoning to work it must follow strict guidelines as in the scientific method.]
The Scientific Method, holds that world is a complex web of causal relationships that can be discovered through systematic investigation. The five steps of scientific method include: 1. Identify an event or a relationship between events to be investigated 2. Gather information about the event (or events) 3. Develop a hypothesis or theory to explain what is happening 4. Test the hypothesis or theory through experimentation 5. Evaluate the hypothesis or theory based on experimental results
Hypothesis, a possible explanation that is introduced to account for a set of facts that can be used as a basis for further investigation.
Logical Fallacies: Mistakes in reasoning (purposefully committed and are rhetorical devices, or simply incorrect reasoning)
–Either/or, a.k.a., false dilemma, false dichotomy, or black-or-white argument
–Argumentum ad hominem (appeal to [attacking] the person]
–Begging the question/circular reasoning
–Appeal to [false] authority
–Appeals to emotion
–Straw man argument
–red herring
–false cause
–slippery slope fallacy
–argumentum ad populum
Write a college-level essay in which you argue your position on Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide, chapter 11. You will be graded on your ability to construct a sustained argument using outside sources, data, the ethical theories we covered in class, as well as proper usage of grammar and syntax. a.) You are required to label each part of your argument using the format for moral argumentation sheet. b.) Use chapter eleven for definition, sources and data and document source by putting “textbook p.__”. c.) Use at least one independent (non-textbook) source and document it. d.) Use no more than two lines of quotation for textbook or outside source(s) e.) avoid in pro-argument and point out in con-argument any logical fallacies. Zero credit for unlabeled arguments. -30 if rough draft not submitted before class on due date.
