Section 3 notes - Chapter 10 summary: Analogical reasoning is one of the most fundamental tools PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter 10 summary:
Analogical reasoning is one of the most fundamental tools used in creating an argument. It can be analyzed as a type of inductive argument—it is a matter of probability, based on experience, and it can be quite persuasive. Analogical reasoning involves drawing an inference ...

Description

Chapter 10 summary: Analogical reasoning is one of the most fundamental tools used in creating an argument. It can be analyzed as a type of inductive argument—it is a matter of probability, based on experience, and it can be quite persuasive. Analogical reasoning involves drawing an inference on the basis of similarities between two or more things. To draw an analogy is simply to indicate that there are similarities between two or more things. An analogical argument is analyzed by revealing the general framework of the argument. The argument lists the characteristics that two (or more) things have in common and concludes that the things being compared probably have some other characteristic in common. If an analogical argument is strong, then it raises the probability that the conclusion is true. There are three ways to show that an analogical argument is weak: 1. If you can point to something that is a direct result of an analogy, but that is unacceptable to the person presenting the analogy, then you can put that person in a difficult position. An unintended consequence of an analogy is something that is a direct result of an analogy, but that is unacceptable to the person presenting the analogy. 2. A disanalogy is another way in which an analogical inference can be weakened. When we point out differences between two or more things, we create a disanalogy. 3. When we create a counteranalogy, which is a new, competing argument comparing the thing in question to something else, we cast some doubt on the strength of the original analogical argument. Four criteria are used to analyze the first premise of an analogical argument: 1. The strength of an analogical argument is related to the number of things referred to in the first premise. 2. The strength of an analogical argument is related to the variety of things referred to in the first premise. 3. The strength of an analogical argument is related to the number of characteristics that are claimed to be similar between the things being compared. 4. The strength of an analogical argument is related to the relevance of the characteristics referred to in the first premise. 5. Chapter 10: Analogical Arguments 6. A. The Framework of Analogical Arguments 7. An analogical argument relies on an analogy to draw a conclusion. An analogy is the assertion of similarities (or dissimilarities) between two or more things. When we reason analogically, we tend to use something well known to us in order to infer something about a lesser known object or event. The fact that we compare similarities between things tells us that we assume these things to be similar (or dissimilar) enough to make it probable that these similarities (or dissimilarities) carry over: 8. When I was a child, I had a favorite dog named Joe. He was an American Staffordshire terrier. He was brindle and white, very sweet, pretty smart, and fiercely loyal. I am considering adopting another American Staffordshire terrier from my local animal shelter. This one is also very sweet and pretty smart. Therefore, he is also probably fiercely loyal. 9. The basic form of an analogical argument looks like this: 10. Premise 1: X and Y have characteristics a, b, c . . . in common. Premise 2: X has characteristic k. Therefore, probably Y has characteristic k. 11. B. Analyzing Analogical Arguments 12. When we analyze an analogical argument, we look for relevant similarities and relevant dissimilarities between the objects or events under comparison. The relevance of similarities and dissimilarities between objects or events is determined by their relation to the conclusion of the argument. For example, in the argument above about the American Staffordshire

13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

terrier, it should be fairly clear that the dog’s markings bear no relevance to whether the dog in the conclusion is going to be loyal. The conclusion of an analogical argument is related to or determined by: 1) The number of things referred to in the first premise. 2) The variety of things referred to in the first premise. 3) The number of characteristics referred to in the first premise. 4) The relevance of the characteristics of things referred to in the first premise. C. Strategies of Evaluation When evaluating an analogical argument, consider: 1) Disanalogies. These are differences between things, or ways in which things are not similar. 2) Counteranalogy. This is a new, competing argument which compares the conclusion object or event to something else. 3) Unintended consequences. When you can point to an undesirable consequence of the analogy someone has advanced, they will be less likely to maintain it.

Inductive Arguments: An argument in which it is claimed that if the premises are true, the conclusion is probable (true premises make it improbable for the conclusion to be false). Strong inductive argument: an argument that is not deductively valid and is such that the truth of its premises make it probable that the conclusion is true Weak inductive argument: an argument such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is not probably true. Cogent inductive argument: the argument is strong and the premises are true Uncogent inductive argument: the argument is weak or has at least one false premise Analogical arguments: inductive. Both situations are possible given the premises. Subjective statement: ice cream is the best Objective: ice cream typically has sugar. Deductive Arguments An argument is deductively validjust in case it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Inductive Arguments An argument is inductively strongjust in case it is not deductively valid and the truth of the premises makes the conclusion probable.

An argument is soundjust in case it is (a) valid and (b) the premises are true.

An argument is cogentjust in case it is (a) inductively strong and (b) the premises are true.

The Framework of Analogical Arguments

Drawing an analogy: indicating similarities between two or more things “Life is like a box of chocolates – you never know what you’re going to get.” Forrest Gump Analogical argument: An argument which finds characteristics that two or more things have in common and concludes that the things being compared probably have some other characteristic in common. The form of analogical arguments (1) Objects X and Y have characteristics a, b, c, . . . in common. (2) X has characteristic k. (3) Y has characteristic k.

(1) PHIL 101 and PHIL 102 are both philosophy classes, taught by the same professor, have similar papers and tests, and are highly abstract. (2) PHIL 102 was a difficult class. (3) Therefore, PHIL 101 will be a difficult class. X objects being compared Y a characteristics in common/ a b known similarities b c k

inferred characteristic/ similarity

c k

Analyzing Analogical Arguments TheAnal y s i sofAnal ogi c alAr gument s :

OPEN PDF anal ogi calar gument sanal y s i s 1. pdf Some arguments from analogy are inductively strong , some weak. Strong: My Toyota Camry and your Nissan Sentra are the same color. My daughter likes the color of my car. Therefore, my daughter will probably like the color of your car, too. Weak: My Ford Hybrid and your Hummer are the same color. My vehicle averages 40 miles per gallon of gasoline. Therefore, your vehicle will probably average 40

CHAPTER 12 LECTURES: Moral Arguments We learned about statements and arguments and how to distinguish them from other uses of language. We learned the difference between deductive and inductive arguments and the various properties for each (validity, soundness, strength, cogency). We learned a method for proving whether a given deductive argument is valid or

invalid. Now, we’ll go into some depth on inductive arguments. We’ll start with moral arguments.

Value Judgments Factual claim vs. value judgment factual claim (non evaluative) -Penguins are birds -Water is H2O value judgment: a claim that a particular human action or object has some degree of importance, worth, or desirability -Ice cream tastes great! -It’s morally wrong to kill innocent people for fun. Types of value judgments personal taste or value: statements that assert one’s personal tastes or values. -I like ice cream. -Running is important to me. moral judgments: asserting that human actions are good, bad, right, or wrong -Killing for fun is morally wrong. -Truth telling is good. Subjective statement vs. Objective statement Subjective: the truth of such statements depend solely on a person’s subjective state (e.g., her feelings, preferences, beliefs, etc.) Example: Ice cream is the best!

Objective: the truth of such statements do not depend on anyone’s beliefs, preferences, desires, etc., but on the nature of reality. Example: Ice cream typically has sugar.

“Moral claims like ‘Truth telling is good’ are just expressions of personal taste much like the claim ‘Vanilla ice cream is the best!’ There is nothing objectively right or wrong about these claims.” The preceding claim is A. True B. False

Moral value judgments often employ two types of statements: prescriptive: offer advice. Example: You shouldn’t do that. normative: establish standards for correct moral behavior. Example: Killing is always wrong.

Moral Theories (Part 1): Some arguments rely solely on factual claims for support, some arguments rely solely on value judgments for support, and some arguments rely on a mixture of the two. A value judgment is a claim that a particular human action or object has some degree of importance, worth, or desirability. We engage in moral reasoning when we construct or follow arguments that rely on value judgments exclusively, or a mixture or value judgments and descriptive judgments. Some moral arguments are intended to be prescriptive. In a moral setting, advice may be offered either by specifying a particular action that ought to be performed, or by providing general moral rules, principles, or guidelines that should be followed. Some moral arguments are normative. Normative arguments establish standards for correct moral behavior; determining norms or rules of conduct. When studying moral arguments, it is important to be conversant with the following concepts:          

 

Emotivism: Holds that moral value judgments are merely expressions of our attitudes or emotions. Consequentialism: A class of moral theories in which the moral value of any human action or behavior is determined exclusively by its outcomes. Teleology: The philosophical belief that the value of an action or object can be determined by looking at the purpose or the end of the action or object. Egoism: The basic principle that everyone should act in order to maximize his or her own individual pleasure or happiness. The most important principle for utilitarianism can be summed up in the famous dictum “the greatest good for the greatest number.”” According to utilitarianism, every human action is “universalizable,” meaning that the same principles hold for all people at all times. Deontology: Holds that duty to others is the first and foremost moral consideration, and it lays the groundwork for discovering those duties. The basic idea of a categorical imperative is that your actions or behavior toward others should always be such that you would want everyone to act in the same manner. Situation ethics agrees that there can be general, even objective, moral rules. However, it holds that we should not rigidly apply those rules to every possible situation. Relativism makes two claims: First, all moral value judgments are determined by an individual’s personal beliefs or by a society’s beliefs toward actions or behavior. Second, there are no objective or universal moral value judgments. Naturalistic moral principle: Since it is natural for humans to desire pleasure (or happiness) and to avoid pain, human behavior ought to be directed to these two ends. Naturalistic fallacy: Value judgments cannot be logically derived from statements of fact.

Chapter 12: Moral Arguments A. Value Judgments

Moral arguments enlist both descriptive and value judgments. Descriptive judgments are statements that describe. Value judgments are statements that reflect a belief in the value, worth, importance, or desirability of an object or a human action. Very often, value judgments are prescriptive, in that they assert that one should do or believe something. Just as often, value judgments are normative, in that they assert a standard for correct moral behavior or rules of conduct. B. Moral Theories There are myriad moral theories, but major theories can be classified as follows: 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

Emotivism: The theory that moral value judgments are merely expressions of one’s attitudes or emotions. Consequentialism: The theory that moral value is determined by the outcomes or consequences of actions. a. Teleology is a type of consequentialism that asserts value can be determined by ascertaining the purpose of an object or action. b. Egoism is a type of consequentialism which asserts that everyone should act in order to increase his or her own pleasure or happiness. c. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism which asserts that moral value is determined by how much happiness is produced for the greatest number of people. Deontology: A duty-based ethical theory that morality is determined by one’s duty to others. a. The first formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is the exemplar of deontological expressions: “Act only on that maxim that you can will at the same time to become a universal law.” Situation Ethics: The theory that moral value may be generalized but not absolute. Relativism: A two-part theory that moral value is determined by the individual’s personal beliefs or society’s beliefs about conduct; there are no objective moral values.

C. The Naturalistic Fallacy Although it may be true that human beings naturally desire their own pleasure or happiness and naturally avoid pain, it does not follow that pleasure or pain ought to be pursued or avoided. Some moral theorists infer from the fact we do pursue pleasure and avoid pain that we ought to do so. (This is called the naturalistic moral principle.) Other moral theorists, the ones who argue that the inference is erroneous, accuse the naturalistic moral philosophers of committing the naturalistic fallacy. We bear this debate in mind as we analyze certain sorts of moral arguments. D. The Structure of Moral Arguments We can detect a moral argument when we have an argument that contains: 1) “At least one premise describing a particular situation where a decision to act will be made by someone”; 2) “at least one premise that supplies a moral rule, principle, or command”; 3) and “the conclusion asserts that a specific action should be performed” (p. 554). E. Analogies and Moral Arguments Analogical reasoning appears in every type of reasoning, including moral arguments. It functions the same way in moral arguments as it does elsewhere, except the conclusion involves a moral judgment. Typically, the comparison involves a morally neutral object or event and the moral object or event of the conclusion. Lastly, analogical reasoning is often the vehicle for moral arguments because they do a good job of pointing out inconsistent moral views or behaviors. Chapter 12: 2 tips

12A Value Judgments 

Bear in mind the distinction between descriptive and value judgments. A descriptive judgment is an attempt to state the facts, or what is the case. A value judgment involves an evaluation of the quality of the facts, or what is the case. Value judgments typically involve adjectives like “good” and “bad.”

12B Moral Theories 

One way to think about a moral theory is in terms of its classification as consequentialist or non-consequentialist. Consequentialist moral theories root the moral value of an action or belief in the quality of the consequences generated. An action that generates good consequences means the action was good. An action that generates bad consequences means the action was bad. Non-consequentialist moral theories root the value of an action or belief in something other than consequences. The concept of duty is an example of a value that is not related to consequences.

Quest i on1 0/0pt s Onani nduc t i v el ys t r ongar gument ,i ft hepr emi s esar et r ue,t heconc l usi oni spr obabl yt r ue. Cor r ect ! T r ue Thi si sessent i al l yt hedefi ni t i onofani nduct i vel yst r ongar gument .SeeBar onet t1G ( oft he3r dedi t i on) .

Fal s e

Quest i on2 0/0pt s I fananal ogi c alar gumenti ss t r ong,t hent hepr emi s esdonotoffergoodr eas onst oacc eptt he c oncl us i on.

T r ue Cor r ect ! Fal s e Si nc eananal ogi cal ar gumenti sani nduc t i vear gument ,i fananal ogi cal ar gumenti sst r ong,t hent het r ut hoft he pr emi sesmakesi tl i k el yt hatt heconc l usi oni st r ue.SeeBar onet t1G ( 3r dedi t i on) .

Quest i on3 0/0pt s Thes t r engt hofananal ogi calar gumenti sr el at edt ot henumberofchar act er i s t i cst hatar ec l ai medt o bes i mi l arbet weent het hi ngsbei ngc ompar ed. Cor r ect ! T r ue Onecanst r engt henananal ogi cal ar gumentbyi ncr easi ngt henumberofchar act er i st i cst hatar ecl ai medt obe si mi l arbet weent het hi ngsbei ngcompar ed.Acav eati st hatt hechar act er i st i cst hatar esupposedt obesi mi l ar i nt hepr emi sesmustber el ev antt ot hechar act er i st i ct hati si nf er r edi nt heconcl usi on.SeeBar onet t10B( oft he 3r dedi t i on) .

Fal s e

Quest i on4 0/0pt s “ Thebonesr ec ent l yf oundi nChi naar epr obabl yhumanbecaus et heymat c hhumanf os si l si nt he f ol l owi ngway s :j awbones t r uc t ur e,t eet h,andcr ani al ar ea. ”Thec onc l us i onoft hepr ec edi ng anal ogi c alar gumenti s“ Thebonesr ecent l yf oundi nChi naar epr obabl yhuman. ” Cor r ect ! T r ue

Fal s e

Quest i on5 0/0pt s Al lar gument sr el ys ol el yonf ac t ualc l ai ms( pr emi ses )f ort hei rs uppor t .

T r ue Cor r ect ! Fal s e Aswes awi nchapt er12DofBar onet t( 3r dedi t i on) ,mor al ar gument si ncl udev al uej udgment si nt hei rpr emi s es .

Quest i on6 0/0pt s Pr es c r i pt i v emeans" t oofferadv i ce. " Cor r ectAnswer T r ue YouAnswer ed Fal s e See12AofBar onet t( 3r dedi t i on) .

Quest i on7 0/0pt s Emot i v i s m doesnothol dt hatmor alv al uej udgment sar emer el yex pr ess i onsofourat t i t udesor emot i ons . YouAnswer ed T r ue Emot i vi sm i st heet hi calt heor ywhi chs ay st hatmor al v al uej udgment sar emer el yexpr essi onsofourat t i t udes oremot i ons .SeeBar onet t12B( 3r dedi t i on) .

Cor r ectAnswer Fal s e

Quest i on8 0/0pt s Consequent i al i sm hol dst hatt hemor al v al ueofanyhumanact i onorbehavi orc annotbedet er mi ned byi t sout c omes .

T r ue Cor r ect ! Fal s e Cons equent i al i sm r ef er st oacl as sofmor al t heor i esi nwhi cht hemor al v al ueofanyhumanact i onorbehavi or i sdet er mi nedex cl usi v el ybyi t sout comes .SeeBar onet t12B( 3r dedi t i on) .

Quest i on9 0/0pt s Thenat ur al i s t i cf al l ac yoc c ur swhenoneat t empt st ol ogi c al l yder i v ev al uej udgment sf r om s t at ement soff ac t . Cor r ect ! T r ue SeeBar onet t12C( 3r dedi t i on) .

Fal s e

Quest i on10 0/0pt s “ Ienj oymov i es . ”Thepr ec edi ngc l ai mi sa

f actc l ai m. Cor r ect ! per s onalt as t ec l ai m.

Si nc ei tdependsonaper son' ss ubj ect i vest at e,i ti snotaf actcl ai m( t houghi tmi ghtbeaf actt hataper son enj oysmovi es) .Si nc ei ti snotcl ai mi ngt hatanyt hi ngi sr i ghtorwr ong,butmer el ynot i ngone' ssubj ect i v e pr ef er ences,i ti snotamor al v al uecl ai m.SeeBar onet t12A( 3r dedi t i on) .

mor alv al uec l ai m.

Quest i on11 0/0pt s On___________,t her i ght nes sorwr ongnes sofani ndi v i dual ’ sact i oni sonl ypar t l ydet er mi ne...