DOCSLIB.ORG

PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020 Evaluating Arguments: Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences, Respectful Argumentation 1 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners. So far, we have discussed fallacies that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. • Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true. Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided. ]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color. » Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence. 3 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences Ø hasty generalization = drawing conclusions about all members of a group or all instances of a phenomenon, after observing just a small sample of examples. This fallacy involves making inductive inferences from insufficient evidence. • Many stereotypes arise from hasty generalizations, and thereby believing them violates the requirement of total evidence. – Drawing conclusions on the basis of an inaccurate stereotype would be making a deductive inference from a false premise: [P1[ All Xs are Y. {P2] This individual is an X. [C] Therefore, this X is Y. If P1 is false (i.e., the stereotype does not describe all members of the group accurately), • then the conclusion that a particular individual fulfills the stereotype is not guaranteed to be true. 4 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences • naturalistic fallacy = inferring that something is good just because it is “natural” (or bad because it isn’t natural) – (As mentioned when we discussed vagueness & weasel words, it’s often unclear on what qualifies something as natural vs. artificial: • the boundaries between these two categories aren’t clear cut, so it’s unclear which category a particular thing might belong in. – e.g., the active ingredient in aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) can be extracted from some plants, but it’s most often synthesized by chemists in a lab; does that make it artificial, even though it occurs in nature?) [P1] Genetically modified foods are not found in nature. [C] Genetically modified foods should be banned. [P1] Viruses are part of nature. [C] Therefore, we shouldn’t try to kill the coronavirus or interfere with its spread. • Implied rule: The extent to which something is ”natural” is irrelevant to assessments of its value. 5 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences Ø appeal to tradition = inferring that something is good just because it aligns with customs, traditions, or historical precedent (or bad because it is new, different, unorthodox, unprecedented…) – Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that’s how things should be, nor that things should continue that way in the future. Many appeals to tradition basically express people’s fear of the unknown. [P1] For most of human history, editing genetic code has been impossible. [C] Therefore, we should ban all gene-editing technologies. Ø appeal to novelty = inferring that something is good just because it is new & different An irrational attraction to whatever is new is no better (logically speaking) than attachment to tradition. Implied rules: The oldness/newness of something is irrelevant to assessments of its value. 6 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences Ø false analogy = claiming that two things that have something in common (no matter how trivial) are thereby basically identical [P1] Ethylene glycol is a chemical. [P2] Ethylene glycol is extremely dangerous. [P3] Dihydrogen monoxide is also a chemical. [C] We must avoid dihydrogen monoxide at all costs. – Two things – like ethylene glycol (found in antifreeze) and dihydrogen monoxide (H2O, commonly known as water – can share some characteristics, but that doesn’t make them equivalent to each other or interchangeable. Implied rule: When discussing a complex phenomenon, acknowledge its full complexity instead of reducing it to a single characteristic. 7 Ø false dichotomy = claiming that there are only two options, positions, or interpretations for a topic, instead of recognizing that there are other alternatives (including both, somewhere in between, or none of the above) [P1] You’re either a cat person or a dog person. [P2] You don’t like cats. [C] Therefore, you’re a dog person. – A lot of false dichotomies show up in political discourse, in which people gravitate towards black-and-white, us vs. them thinking; • sometimes this involves proposing “purity tests” by which people must prove their allegiance to one side or the other (and are not allowed to remain on the fence or have a moderate stance). [P1] You aren’t in favor of all aspects of a capitalist economy. [C] Therefore, you are a communist. [P1] You prefer a public option for health insurance over completely abolishing the private health insurance industry. [C] Therefore, you are a practically a Republican. 8 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. We can think of evidence as “sufficient” when: a) an adequate amount of information has been provided b) this information is relevant to the conclusion c) this information comes from reliable sources d) this information is appropriate for the argumentative context – Let’s check out some common fallacies which involve the use of insufficient evidence, including: » not providing enough evidence » providing irrelevant evidence » providing unreliable evidence » providing inappropriate evidence 9 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence Ø anecdotal evidence = attempting to use one’s limited personal experience, or hearsay about someone else’s experience, as justification for a general conclusion – We could describe this as a subtype of hasty generalization. [P1] The G train came right away the one time I rode it. [C] The G train is totally reliable. As we discussed when we learned about the problem of induction, • one’s own personal experience (e.g., having only come across white swans) may not provide adequate insight to draw accurate generalizations (e.g., about the color range of swans). – Same goes for another person’s experience you learn about via testimony. – Implied rules: Don’t rely upon your own personal experience alone. • Seek a wider set of evidence reflecting other people’s experience, 10 many instances of observation under various circumstances, etc. Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence Ø confirmation bias = ignoring or suppressing evidence that challenges the view defended in the conclusion; ”cherry-picking” particular sources &/or pieces of evidence that support a specific narrative, instead of presenting a more complete & accurate picture of the relevant evidence – Implied rule: The “requirement of total evidence”: • in order for either a belief or a conclusion to be justified, it should be based on consideration of all the evidence, not just part of it. 11 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence Ø Begging the question (a.k.a. circular argumentation) = when an author presupposes the truth of the conclusion within the reasoning they provide in defense of that conclusion. – Hence, the reasoning goes in a circle: it starts from where it intends to end (the truth of the conclusion), instead of providing distinct starting points that lead to inferring the conclusion. [P1] Nature exhibits intelligent design by a divine creator. [C] A higher power exists. • This argument begs the question, because [P1] contains an assumption that the patterns we observe in nature must have been created intentionally instead of arising through natural processes • Implied rule: Choose premises that could be believed to be true by individuals who haven’t yet committed to the truth of the argument’s conclusion. 12 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence Ø slippery slope = using premises that claim that making one change will inevitably lead to drastic undesirable consequences – This amounts to making bad inductive inferences about what will happen in the future (and/or lying for the purposes of fear-mongering): • guesses about what the future will bring are conjectures rather than facts, so these premises can’t be regarded as reliably true. [P1] If we legalize marijuana, next thing you know it’ll be legal to sell heroin to kids. [C] Therefore, marijuana use should be illegal. [P1] If you start using meth, you’ll end up turning to prostitution in order to pay for your drug habit. [C] Therefore, you shouldn’t start using meth. videos: bit.ly/2YpRf8k, bit.ly/2KVgPdu 13 Fallacies that involve providing irrelevant evidence Ø red herring = presenting information that has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion, – usually for the purpose of distracting readers/listeners by drawing their attention towards something provocative that might shape their opinion of the argument’s topic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology
    The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology W. Matthews Grant It is customary to divide contemporary natural law theorists-at least those working broadly within the Thomistic tradition-into two main camps. In one camp are those such as John Finnis, Germain Grisez and Robert George, who deny that a natural law ethics need base itself on premises supplied by a methodologically prior philosophical anthropol­ ogy. According to these thinkers, practical reason, when reflecting on experience and considering possible ends of action, grasps in a non-in­ ferential act of understanding certain basic goods that ought to be pursued. Since these goods are not deduced, demonstrated, or derived from prior premises, they provide a set of self-evident or per se nota primary pre­ cepts from which all other precepts of the natural law may be derived. Because these primary precepts or basic goods are self-evident, natural law theorizing need not wait on the findings of anthropologists and phi­ losophers of human nature. 1 A rival school of natural law ethicists, comprised of such thinkers as Russell Bittinger, Ralph Mcinerny, Henry Veatch andAnthony Lisska, rejects the claims of Finnis and his colleagues for the autonomy of natural law I. For major statements and defenses of this position see John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, I980); Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus~ vol. I, Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, I983);. Robert P. George, "Recent Criticism of Natural Law
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of the (Un)Natural
    Ethics of the (un)natural Start date 22nd January 2017 Time 10:00am – 16:45pm Venue Madingley Hall Madingley Cambridge Tutor Anna Smajdor Course code 1617NDX055 Director of Programmes Emma Jennings Public Programme Coordinator, Clare Kerr For further information on this course, please contact [email protected] or 01223 746237 To book See: www.ice.cam.ac.uk or telephone 01223 746262 Tutor biography Anna is Associate Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo. Prior to that, she was Ethics Lecturer at Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia. She has been offering philosophy courses at ICE for several years on themes related to her research interests, such as 'Ethics of the (Un)natural' in 2016/17. When not teaching at ICE, Anna spends her time at the University of Oslo and collaborating with colleagues at the University of Umeå in Sweden, where she is part of a research project- 'Close personal relationships-children and the family'. University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course programme 09:30 Terrace bar open for pre-course tea/coffee 10:00 – 11:15 Session 1 – Unnatural practices 11:15 Coffee 11:45 – 13:00 Session 2 – “Our niggardly stepmother” 13:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:15 Session 3 – The naturalistic fallacy 15:15 Tea 15:30 – 16:45 Session 4 – Reasoning with nature 16:45 Day-school ends University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course syllabus Aims: To engage students in a critical analysis of the ways in which concepts of nature are used in moral reasoning To explore the degree to which the ‘natural fallacy’ sweeps aside the possibility of reasoning from nature To analyse several key bioethical questions (animal research, conservation, human/animal chimaeras) on which concepts of nature have a bearing Content: This course will analyse the relationship between morality and nature in the context of key bioethical concerns, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques
    Sample Activity Learning Critical Thinking Through Astronomy: Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques Joe Heafner [email protected] Version 2017-09-13 STUDENT NOTE PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT. 2017-09-13 Activity0105 CONTENTS Contents QuestionsSample Activity1 Materials Needed 1 Points To Remember 1 1 Fallacies and Distractions1 Student1.1 Lying................................................. Version 1 1.2 Shifting The Burden.........................................2 1.3 Appeal To Emotion.........................................3 1.4 Appeal To The Past.........................................4 1.5 Appeal To Novelty..........................................5 1.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Masses, Appeal To Popularity).............6 1.7 Appeal To Logic...........................................7 1.8 Appeal To Ignorance.........................................8 1.9 Argument By Repetition....................................... 10 1.10 Attacking The Person........................................ 11 1.11 Confirmation Bias.......................................... 12 1.12 Strawman Argument or Changing The Subject.......................... 13 1.13 False Premise............................................. 14 1.14 Hasty Generalization......................................... 15 1.15 Loaded Question........................................... 16 1.16 Feigning Offense........................................... 17 1.17 False Dilemma............................................ 17 1.18 Appeal To Authority........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Example in Media
    Appeal To Tradition Fallacy Example In Media Alonso bulldogging properly. Smith remains calendered after Stearn forsakes authentically or required any reshipments. Synoptistic and choreographic Taddeo inculcated some tuckahoes so where'er! In deciding whether the writer simply dismissing my belief because generations have read and example in to appeal tradition can have a world was Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not arrogant to discussion. What fallacies appeal to tradition has made or fallacious generalizations to tradition. Caesar, not to suit him. The analysis by appealing to continually support this century, andrea dworkin has evolved successfully by. While this tradition. The fallacy often needs to support his past and reporter is used in? Yet people made explicit materials have learned a to tradition. Just as Apollo was born on the Mediterranean island Delos, Napoleon was born on the Mediterranean island Corsica. Or, are least other investors can secure not buying the stock at what current price. As appeals held that appropriately employ to best with little respect. Defining markets through examples were biased ideal or appeal to tradition to cheat if too few carefully lined up? That present ambiguous problem of a fugitive goes unnoticed allows the illusion that an argument is via real deduction. The awareness has to appeal tradition fallacy in? The permission of ai systems is true because of loud, andrea and fallacy in? Do we want to sensitive to be easy free country? Aristotle argued instead observed in government for information. The similarities between people around in persuasive because a topic for president, this is simplified some old argument theorists quarrel with.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalness and Unnaturalness in Contemporary Bioethics Anna Smajdor 57 Artikkel Samtale & Kritikk Spalter Brev
    ARTIKKEL SAMTALE & KRITIKK SPALTER BREV Meta-ethical and methodological considerations The is/ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy FRA FORSKNINGSFRONTEN Nature appears in bioethics in a number of guises and con- There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has texts. At the most basic level, people may feel that it is mo- not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every rally wrong to alter, distort or subvert natural processes. physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every NATURALNESS AND Leon Kass, for example, argues that an intuitive recoiling biological invention is a perversion. There is hardly one from interventions such as cloning that distort or frag- which, on first being brought to the notice of an observer ment the natural processes of reproduction, is a powerful from any nation which had not previously heard of their UNNATURALNESS IN indicator that such interventions are unethical (1998:3– existence, would not appear to him as indecent and un- 61). These are perhaps the most obvious occasions when natural. (Haldane 1924) nature plays an explicit role in informing moral reaso- CONTEMPORARY ning in bioethics. However, there are many other ways in Peter Singer and Deane Wells state categorically that “… which nature colours the concepts and themes employed there is no valid argument from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ in bioethical deliberation. For example, bioethicists may (2006:9-26). Similar views can be found in the work of BIOETHICS be concerned with the natural world, or nature, especially many bioethicists. A report on the ethics of grafting hu- in terms of our moral responsibility to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Clear and Present Thinking
    Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Clear and Present Thinking Project Director: Brendan Myers (CEGEP Heritage College) Authors: Brendan Myers Charlene Elsby (Queen’s University) Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray (University of Waterloo) Nola Semczyszyn (Franklin & Marshall College) Editor / Proofreader: Natalie Evans (University of Guelph - Humber) Layout and Design: Nathaniel Winter-Hébert, Lana Winter-Hébert www. winterhebert.com Version 1.1 (21st May 2013) Northwest Passage Books This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ For all other enquiries, please visit brendanmyers.net Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Version 1.1 Northwest Passage Books Contents Contents Acknowledgments 2.2.2 Self-Awareness 39 Introduction 7 2.2.3 Health 40 2.2.4 Courage 40 Chapter One: Questions, Problems, 2.2.5 Healthy Skepticism 41 and World Views 15 2.2.6 Autonomy 41 2.2.7 Simplicity 42 1.1 Intellectual Environments 15 2.2.8 Precision 42 1.2 World Views 17 2.2.9 Patience 43 1.3 Framing Language 19 2.2.10 Consistency 43 1.4 Problems 20 2.2.11 Open-ness and Open-Mindedness 43 1.5 Observation 21 2.2.12 Asking for help 44 1.6 Questions 23 2.3 A few summary remarks for Chapter Two 45 1.7 Differing World Views 25 2.4 Exercises for Chapter Two 45 1.8 Value Programs 26 1.9 World Views, Civilization, and Conflict 27 Chapter Three: Basics of 1.10 Exercise for Chapter One 28 Argumentation 47
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-04-30 Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism Jimenez, Kieran Chad Jimenez, K. C. (2013). Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26002 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/662 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism by Kieran Jimenez A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2013 © Kieran Jimenez 2013 Abstract Hardly a week passes without new findings emerging from evolutionary psychology regarding how our view of morality has been influenced by our biological evolution. Evolutionary ethics is a normative project built upon these scientific insights. Evolutionary ethicists fall into two groups: substantiators or skeptics. Substantiators believe moral ideas can now be scientifically proven. Skeptics believe there are no moral truths because morality is just a biological adaptation. I believe the project of evolutionary ethics is misconceived. I argue that both the substantiators and the skeptics fail to show the direct relevance of biology to ethics.
    [Show full text]