Chapter 12, Part 1
MORAL REASONING
Almost everything you need to
know…
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
Important to remember:
 For now, “moral” means “not
nonmoral”
 Doesn’t mean “not immoral”
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
2
The difference?
Placing a knife in a drawer is a
NONMORAL act.
Placing a knife in your roommate’s
eye is an IMMORAL act.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
3
Say that last
justpart
means
again?
So here, “moral”
“having to do with morality.”
“MORAL REASONING” refers to
reasoning that applies a MORAL
PRINCIPLE to a specific case.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
4
Okay.
Let’s start at the beginning.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
5
A “value judgment” judges the
merit of something.
A “moral value judgment” judges
the MORAL merit of something.
Example ………………….>
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
6
Which is out of place?
A. He wanted a lot.
B. He got what he wanted.
C. She gave him what he wanted.
D. She gave him more than he
deserved.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
7
“She gave him more than he
deserved” judges the merit of
her action.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
8
And which of these is out of
place?
A. Children should respect their elders.
B. Stealing is wrong.
C. Moore is a good person.
D. Moore is an effective teacher.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
9
That last item is a value
judgment, but not a MORAL
value judgment:
A. Children should respect their elders.
B. Stealing is wrong.
C. Moore is a good person.
D. Moore is an effective teacher.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
10
“Moore is an effective teacher”
is a judgment about Moore’s
merits as a teacher.
But not about Moore’s MORAL
merits.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
11
Divide into two groups of two:
“Jason is the world’s best poker player.”
“Susan dresses really well.”
“It’s wrong to invade another country.”
“Dog, you should be nicer to your kid
brother.”
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
12
Reds are value judgments not
about moral merit. Blues are
moral value judgments.
“Jason is the world’ best poker player.”
“Susan dresses really well.”
“It’s wrong to invade another country.”
“Dog, you should be nicer to your little brother.”
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
13
Quiz: Which of these are
value-judgments?
 Lizards make fine pets.
 The haircuts at Supercuts suck.
 You can buy a toilet snake at True
Value for under $20.
 Texas leads the nation in executions.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
14
And which of these are
value-judgments?
 Air consists mainly of nitrogen and
oxygen.
 Fossil fuel emissions are causing global
warming.
 Global warming is a terrible thing.
 Bonaparte was the greatest general in
modern times.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
15
And which of these are
value-judgments?
 Atlanta is sultry in July.
 Six Flags has dangerous rides.
 Al Sharpton has a good sense of
humor.
 Eugene dresses way better than Polly.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
16
Which are
MORAL value-judgments?
 If she had any decency, Sam wouldn’t
smoke around her kids.
 Sandy, you are lazier than a hedgehog.
 Wow, what a tasty meal!
 Cheating on your girlfriend is beneath
contempt.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
17
Some moral value judgments
are GENERAL statements.
Examples:
“Stealing is wrong.”
“You should keep your promises.”
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
18
Which of these are
general statements?
 It’s not right to smoke around kids.
 Sandy shouldn’t smoke around her kids.
 Harold was wrong to cheat on his
girlfriend.
 Cheating on your girlfriend is beneath
contempt.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
19
One little piece of terminology:
• A “moral principle” is just a general
moral statement.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
20
Okay:
• Moral reasoning mostly consists of
applying a general moral principle to a
specific case.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
21
For example:
General moral
principle
It’s wrong to smoke around kids, and
Sam smokes around her kids.
So Sam is doing something wrong.
Specific
case
Note: DEDUCTIVE reasoning!
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
22
Okeedokee.
Moral reasoning logic principle # 1:
Similar cases are to be treated in
similar ways.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
23
For example:
If I let one kid take quizzes with book
open…
…then I must let the next kid do the
same.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
24
Moral reasoning logic principle # 2:
If you seem to be treating similar cases
differently, then the burden of proof is
on YOU to explain why the cases really
are NOT similar.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
25
For example:
If I let blue-eyed kids take the Quizzes
with their books open…
…then it is up to me to show why blueeyed kids should be treated differently.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
26
Interim review







Immoral v. nonmoral
Value judgment
Moral value judgment
Moral principle
Moral reasoning
MR logic principle # 1
MR logic principle # 2
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
27
Often the general moral
principle is UNSTATED.
Example:
“He promised he would marry you, so
he better not back out now.”
Unstated general principle:
One should keep one’s promises.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
28
Supply a general moral
principle that makes this
argument valid:
He kicked his dog.
He did something he shouldn’t do.
Unstated general principle?
One shouldn’t kick dogs.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
29
Supply a general moral
principle that makes this
argument valid:
“Hey! You shouldn’t say that! It will hurt
her feelings.”
Unstated general principle?
One shouldn’t say things that will hurt
others’ feelings.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
30
Supply a general moral
principle that makes this
argument valid:
He’s only a child, so he shouldn’t be
exposed to explicit sexual reading
material.
Unstated general principle?
Children shouldn’t be exposed to
explicit sexual reading material.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
31
Supply a general moral
principle that makes this
argument valid:
The checker undercharged you for that
bottle of wine. You should inform him!
Unstated general principle?
You should inform a person if he/she
undercharges you.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
32
Supply a general moral
principle that makes this
argument valid:
Ms. Jones can do anything Mr. Smith
can do, and he’s willing to hire Smith. So
he should be willing to hire Jones.
Unstated general principle?
People with equal abilities have an
equal right to be hired.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
33
Right on.
So now, the obvious question is:
WHICH general principles are
the correct ones?
These are the more important
schools of thought.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
34
We will refer to these as:
Basic Perspectives in Ethics.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
35
First, an exercise.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
36
Page 457, Exercise12-8, # 2.
Is Shelley treating similar
cases similarly?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
37
She seems NOT
to be doing so.
Therefore, the
burden of proof is on
her to show there’s a
difference between
the two cases.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
38
Page 458, Item # 9.
Is “Graybosch” treating similar
cases in a similar way?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
39
Seems NOT to be doing so.
So he must show there’s a difference
between the two cases.
(c) Erica S. Leeds
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
40
What might he say to show
there are differences between
people and dogs that would
legitimize experimenting on
dogs but not on people?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
41
Page 458, Item #10.
What should Bork say?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
42
Bork doesn’t say his children have
more right to happiness than do other
kids.
He can AGREE with his critic,
and simply respond that others owe
their children as much as he owes his
kids.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
43
Most people think it’s morally
okay to hunt deer for sport…
…but don’t think it’s morally okay to
hunt humans.
So what are the relevant differences
that would make it okay in the first
case?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
44
Which of the following are NOT
relevant differences morally?
 “Deer can be eaten.”
 “It’s more challenging to hunt deer.”
 “It’s against the law to hunt people.”
 “God created people in his image.”
 “Deer aren’t one of us.”
 …?
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
45
Summary:
REASONING has an important role in
moral thinking.
 It requires deductive logic.
 Involves applying general principles to
specific cases.
If we seem to be treating similar cases
differently, the burden of proof is on us to
explain how they are different.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
46
And if we…
 Can’t provide a decent general principle,
or
 Can’t explain a relevant difference
between two similar cases…
…then we should rethink our position.
© 2012 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.
47