PART 1: Discusses arguments and the parts of arguments, and how to recognize moral claims and moral arguments

MORAL REASONING: USING ARGUMENTATION IN ETHICS

What is an argument?
Important: Argument is the main currency so, not enough to hold on to philosophical claims. Have to justify then, not enough to make moral
claims, should provide an argument for them.
- Diagramming arguments (for complex arguments)
Parts: A group of claims or statements (more than 1) where at least one statement (the premise) attempts to provide reasons for
believing another statement (the conclusion)
- Since it’s a group of statements, can be divided into groups
1st group = of statements reflect the premise; the reasons for believing 🡪 2nd the other group of statements which is the
conclusion
“A PIECE OF REASONING HAS 2 PARTS: REASONS ARE THE JUSTIFICATIONS WE MAKE; PREMISE, IN SUPPORT OF MAIN POINT; CONCLUSION”

- Composed of claim/statements (Proposition; Logical Proposition) that has truth value

- Logical Claims / Statements (the state of affairs) asserts smth is / isn’t the case; have a truth value, either true or false
STATEMENTS: (Can be true or false depending on the States of Affairs)
- the ship sailed on the wind-tossed sea - murder is wrong
- A circle is not a square - 5+5=10
NOT STATEMENTS: (Don’t have truth value) (I.E. Questions, Commands, a Greeting, Expressions)
- Why is May laughing? - Don’t speak to me.
- Is abortion immoral? - for heaven’s sake
- Hand me the book.
“Argument; Piece of reasoning containing groups of claims / statements (logical propositions / utterance) have truth value.
Excluded are utterances with no truth value (Questions, expressions etc)”

Must understand an argument from what its constituent statements do. To identify an argument, check if there is a Conclusion.
- Does it have a point it’s trying to prove? is there a Conclusion it’s trying to convince you of?
“Most reliable way to identify arguments is to always look for the conclusion first. When you know what claim is being supported, you can
easily see what statements are doing the supporting. A true argument always has something to prove. No statement that writer is trying
to convince you to accept, no arguments present.”
Read the passage 🡪 identify the main point 🡪 look for other statements playing a supporting role regarding point.

When locating the conclusion first, look for indicator words that help recognize the parts of an argument
CONCLUSION INDICATORS: (words indicating presence of Conclusion)
EX: therefore, consequently, hence, it follows that, thus, so, it must be that, as a result
PREMISE INDICATORS: (Come before reasons / justifications that made in support of Conclusion)
EX: because, since, for, given that, due to the fact that, for the reason that, the reason being, assuming that, as indicated by
- If no indicator words, look at the sense of the whole text to see the point, what the main point is.
- if it is trying to convince that claim is true / should be accepted, reasons are given for you to accept claim/statement. It’s an
argument even if no indicator words.

(the underlined is the conclusion)

Argument 1: Capital punishment is morally permissible because it helps to deter crime. (1 concl. 1 prem.)
Argument 2: If John killed Bill in self-defense, he did not commit murder (Conditional statement; if p then q; if-then statement). He did act in
self-defense. Therefore, he did not commit murder. (1concl. 2 prem./reasons)
Argument 3: Telling a white lie is morally permissible. We should judge the rightness of an act by its impact on human well-being (1st prem.).
If an act increases human well-being, then it is right (Conditional statement). Without question, telling a white lie increases human well-being
because it spares people’ feelings (3 rd prem, is an argument in itself; Complex Argument) that’s what white lies are for. (3 prem. 1 concl.)
- Conclusion in 3rd argument; telling a white lie increases human being and is supported by the premise, because it spares
people’s feelings. That’s why it increases human well-being.
- 3rd argument; Complex Argument cuz Conclusion is telling a white lie increases human well-being, supported by the premise; it
spares people’s feelings kaya it increases human well being

When faced with a complex argument, becomes useful to learn how to diagram arguments to picture its logical structure
- See which premises support which conclusion, which conclusion becomes the premise of a larger argument

Diagramming arguments is a good way to illustrate logical structure of a piece of reasoning:

1. number all the statements for identification
2. underline conclusion
3. use numbers to represent the premises and the conclusion, show how these statements are related by drawing arrows indicating their
logical connection
4. Join dependent premises together with a plus (+) sign
- there are cases where certain premises go together, these are dependent premises, they need one another to prove the
conclusion
Analogy: (1) President is either dishonest or incompetent (2) he’s’ not incompetent though, because (3) he’s an expert at getting self-serving
legislation through congress. (4) I guess he’s just dishonest.
3 🡪 (statement 3 supports statement 2)1+2🡪 4 (1&2 leads to 4)
Not enough that can recognize argument but need to have skills to evaluate moral arguments; MORAL ARGUMENTATION
 - Important to recognize what makes claims moral, since arguments are composed of claims, moral arguments would consist
of moral claims

Recognizing moral claims and arguments

What is a moral argument?
- Moral claim = prescriptive claim / value judgement signaling a moral evaluation
- special type of prescriptive claim, not all prescriptive claims are moral claims.
- there are prescriptive claims that are just expressions / statements of aesthetic evaluation
Note: not all prescriptive claims assign moral values to things
DESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS: (Describe the state of affairs / simply facts)
- Do not assign a value to things. Just assert facts
EX:
- Gina Is twenty-seven - the steaks are frozen - President has never been divorced
PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS: (assert value, evaluative claims)
- Assessing an evaluation and say something what a person should / shouldn’t do
EX:
- Gina shouldn’t ask people for money (moral claim)
- It is wrong to eat meat (moral claim)
- The president ought to be able to be divorced if she wanted to be (moral, a statement about what should be allowed for president)
- Yo-yo Ma’s musical abilities are excellent (non-moral) (Aesthetic claim)
“Moral claims are special kind of prescriptive claims that assert smth about the moral world / moral action, pertains to moral
behavior ability not moral act”

Moral arguments
- Argument whose conclusion is always a moral statement
Parts: At least one premise must be moral statement, affirming a moral principle or rule. And at least one premise must be non-moral
statement, about a state of affairs, usually specific type of action
EX: (1) [nonmoral premise but a description] Not using every medical means available to keep a seriously ill new born infant alive is
allowing the infant to die. (2) [moral premise] allowing terminally ill infants to die is wrong. Therefore, (3) [moral conclusion] not using
every medical means available to keep a seriously ill newborn infant alive is wrong.

PART 2: Discusses the evaluation of arguments (whether deductive or inductive), conditional statements, some valid argument
forms, and some informal fallacies:

Evaluating Arguments
Types of arguments:
- Deductive & Inductive
- Way to evaluate arguments will depend on what type of argument it is.
Deductive Arguments - evaluated in terms of validity and soundness
Inductive Arguments - evaluated in basis of strength and cogency

Evaluating Arguments:
1. Know first which of the 2 types of argument it is
- Deductive Argument = gives logically conclusive support to the conclusion
- logically conclusive; assuming the premises to be true, there is no way for the conclusion to be false.
- This argument ensures: There is no way for the conclusion to be false, it is 100% guaranteed by the truth of the premises
EX: All men are mortal (premise). Socrates is a man (premise). Therefore, Socrates is mortal = LOGICALLY CONCLUSVE

- Inductive Argument = Only is PROBABLE support for the conclusion

- even if all premises are true, conclusion is only probable / possible / not necessarily true
EX: Almost all men in this college have high SAT scores. Therefore, Julio (a male student at the college) probably has high SAT scores.

Different evaluative terms for deductive and inductive arguments

FORM/STRUCTURE:
VALID – if Premises are true, then Conclusion absolutely has to be true.
EX: if the moon is made of green cheese, then angels exist. The moon is made of green cheese . So angels exist.
- validity pertains to the structure/form of the argument
INVALID – Even if Premises are true, Conclusion may not be true.
EX: If it rains, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained.
“Validity and Invalidity pertains not if deductive argument fulfills its promise that the truth of the conclusion follows absolutely from the truth of
the premises” ”Nothing about the truth value of the premises, it’s just the form.”

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
SOUND – A valid argument whose premises are ALL TRUE.
- The truth value of its contents, constituent statements the premises are actually true
EX: DLSU is in Manila (premises). Manila is in the Philippines (premises). Thus, DLSU is in the Philippines.
- both the premises and conclusion is true, it is VALID in form so everything about this is true
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
STRONG – If premises are true, conclusion is PROBABLY TRUE
EX: Sheila has had a perfect attendance record over the past five years. She will likely be present tomorrow.
- Doesn’t exclude that the possibility that she may be absent, so there’s small chance but is more likely that she won’t be absent
- The probability of the conclusion in terms of form, is strong
WEAK – Even if Premises are true, Conclusions is not probable
EX: A lot of women have long hair. Helen is a woman. She likely has long hair.
- Weak in form cuz it doesn’t say most women, just says a lot of women.
- Even is Helen is a women, it doesn’t say anything about length of her hair, she might as well have short hair than long hair.
COGENT – A strong argument whose premises are true
EX: The sun has always risen in the past (true). It will probably rise again tomorrow.

How we evaluate args will depend on the type of args. The 2 types of arguments differ in terms of the truth value of the conclusion.
- Eval args based on the truth of the premises if they guarantee the truth of the conclusion = Absolutely; Valid Deductive or
Probably; Strong Inductive
- Look at both form and content, not just the evaluative terms / adjectives.
- The form of the argument like, Validity and Strength
- The adj we use to describe args, correct on form and true in content = Sound and Cogent

SPECIAL TYPES OF STATEMENT MISTAKEN FOR ARGUMENTS, COMPOUND STATEMENTS (MORE THAN 1 COMPONENT)
Conditional statement – If P, then Q
- where P is Antecedent, Q is Consequent.
- claims that if P is true, Q is also true.
EX: If you have a driver’s license in the Philippines, you are at least 17 years old.
P: You have a driver’s license in the Philippines
Q: You are at least 17 years old

P = sufficient condition for Q ; P guarantees Q

- P is sufficient condition for Q. If we have P, that’s all we need to know, Q follows from P.
EX: if we have a drivers license in the Phil (P), then we know you’re at least 17 y.o.(Q). Having the driver’s license already means that you
are 17 y.o.
Q = necessary condition for P; Q is a requirement for (but doesn’t guarantee) P
- Q is a requirement for P, but in itself Q does not guarantee P
EX: You are at least 17 y.o.
- that isn’t enough not a sufficient condition for you to get driver’s license, cuz not just u being 17 y.o. that is required. Maybe you
failed the driver’s test / you never took the driver’s licensure test etc.
- There are diff requirements and being 17 y.o. is just one of the requirements.
- If you still not 17, then can’t get license, so Q is necessary to P.

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF EXPRESSING THE CONDITIONAL STATEMENT IF P, THEN Q:

- P is a sufficient condition for Q
- Q is a necessary condition for P
- P means/implies Q
- P only if Q
- Q if P

VALID ARGUMENT FORMS

Disjunctive Syllogism (EITHER-OR statement)
- P or Q
- Not P, therefore Q
EX: Either Josh enrolled this term, or he got a job. He did not get a job. Therefore, he enrolled this term

Hypothetical Syllogism
- If P, then Q. ~ If Q, then R
- Therefore, If P, then R
EX: If you fail the test, you fail the course. If you fail the course, you lose your honors status. Therefore, if you fail the test, you lose honors
status.

Modus Ponens (“Affirmative Mode” in Latin)

- VALID FORM TO ARGUE
-(starts with a conditional statement 🡪) If P, then Q
- P (affirm antecedent), therefore, Q
EX: If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is wet.
- INVALID FORM TO ARGUE (THIS IS A FALLACIE; INVALID WAY OF REASONING)
Affirming the Consequent
- If P, then Q
- Q, Therefore P
EX: if it rains, the grounds is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained.
- Fallacious cuz conclusion can be true / false, no guarantee that its true.
- The mere fact of the truth of the premises even if the ground is wet and know if it rains the ground is wet, we can’t validly
conclude that it did in fact rain cuz there may be other reasons for the ground to be wet. The premises are silent about what reasons are
there for it to be wet
Modus Ponens and Affirming the Consequent, at first look similar but are actually different. The slight diff makes one form valid
and the other valid as well
Modus Tollens (“Negative Mode” in Latin)
- VALID FORM TO ARGUE
-(starts with a conditional statement 🡪) If P, then Q
- Not Q (negate consequence), therefore, not P
EX: If it rains, the ground is wet. The grounds is not wet. Therefore, it did not rain.

Denying the Antecedent

- INVALID FORM TO ARGUE (THIS IS A FALLACIE; INVALID WAY OF REASONING)
- If P, then Q
- Not P, Therefore not Q
EX: If it rains, the ground is wet. It did not rain. Therefore, the ground is not wet.
- Invalid, cuz the two premises in itself don’t tell us anything about whether or not the ground is wet.
- It may / may not be wet, all we know is it didn’t rain. So still possible for Conclusion to be false maybe ground is wet even though
it didn’t rain, there are other possible scenarios.

Evaluating Arguments
- When about fallacies involving conditional statements, mentioned Denying the Antecedent, Affirming the Consequent = Are examples
of FORMAL FALLACIES
- Fallacy/Error inheres to the structure / form of argument. Instead of following Modus Pollens, were doing Affirming the
Consequent. Or instead of Modus Tollens, were actually doing Denying the Consequent

INFORMAL FALLACIES (Error consist in content)

Ad Hominem Fallacy = trying to undermine truth of a position by attacking the person who is advancing it
- attack the person instead of the argument
EX: Somebody says smth we disagree with. Instead to respond to the point they made, we talk about their love life

Appeal to Authority = relying on authority figures to substantiate a position outside of their area of expertise
EX: Typical in advertisements. Associate a type of product with a fame of a particular superstar, but advertisements are just appealing to
your subconscious assumptions about what you think you need to buy. In effect, advertisements are not arguments at all

Appeal to Ignorance = believing a claim to be true (or false) cuz it hasn’t been proven otherwise
EX: The lack of info to conclude smth one way or another “I assert that aliens exist cuz it hasn’t been proven that they don’t”. “Or aliens don’t
exist cuz its hasn’t been proven that they do”

Appeal to Irrelevant Emotions = playing on emotions rather than offering facts and evidence that bear the truth of the claim
EX: When u try to shame someone cuz u don’t have evidence to falsify their agreement. Attack them where they are vulnerable

Hasty Generalization = illicitly drawing a general lesson from only a handful of cases
EX: We make a generalization abt a whole set base on a handful of cases I.E. typically involve stereotypes, racial stereotypes, cultural,
gender, Lasallians, Ateneans etc

Straw Man Fallacy – depicting a position in a way that makes it easy to refute. Diverting attention from real position being advanced
- we create this straw man because it is easier to attack
EX: When you deliberately misrepresent what a person said