Ethical Claims
Ethical Claims
Both ethics and morals involve considerations about what’s right and wrong. The term “ethics” derives from the Greek word ethos, meaning character, while “moral” comes from the Latin word moralis, meaning ethical. So the words “ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably.
For most of this text, we’ve been exploring the ways that people provide support that a claim is true. But now we’re exploring something quite different: how people provide support that a claim is right—not “right” in the sense of accurate but “right” in the sense of morally the correct thing to do.
Not everything has a moral dimension. Some things, like arithmetic, are amoral. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neither good nor bad, it’s just true. In contrast, consider the following claim:
It is wrong to eat meat.
This is still a conclusion, and to persuade others to believe it, we will need to construct an argument (i.e., provide sound reasoning to support this conclusion). So we’re still dealing with claims and arguments, fallacies and sources, and so on. But we’ve completely left the realm of science, with its observable phenomena and replicable experiments. We’re in the land of ethics now.
We learn ethics like we learn everything else, through a mixture of personal experience and shared knowledge. Every society possesses a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. Generally speaking, we believe that it is good to help other people and bad to hurt them. We learn this from our own reactions to things as we grow up and develop our sense of self. And these lessons are reinforced by parents, teachers, friends, and strangers, as well as in the stories of our culture.
A Few Helpful Terms for Discussing Ethics
Ethics: thinking and reasoning about right and wrong.
Moral principles: rules of conduct that guide an individual’s actions to take into account the interests of other people.
Excuse: a reason offered for breaking a moral principle in a given situation.
Justification: an argument claiming that violating some moral principle is actually the right course of action in a given situation.
Killing is wrong… (moral principle)
… unless you are killing someone as punishment for killing someone else. (justification)
Moral dilemma: a situation in which there is not an obvious ethically right or wrong answer, often because there are two moral principles in conflict with each other.
An armed man has entered a school and is killing children.
It’s wrong to kill.
Should I kill him to keep him from killing others?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
How do moral claims differ from other types of claims?
· They make a claim about what’s right and wrong.
· They contain a premise and a conclusion.
· There’s no such thing as a fallacy in a moral claim.
· They must be supported by evidence.
Save
Kayla normally believes that a mother should make her child as happy as possible. However, Kayla took away her daughter’s favorite toy for a day and explained to her husband that it was because the girl had thrown a tantrum in the grocery store and needed to be taught a lesson. Which of the following is Kayla providing?
· a moral principle
· a justification
· a moral dilemma
· an amoral claim
Save
Your Turn
·
Top of Form
Describe an example of a moral dilemma that you have encountered in your own life. 9.2 Practice: Ethical Claims
9.3 Ethical Reasoning 9.4 Practice: Ethical Reasoning 9.5 Moral Theories 9.6 Practice: Moral Theories
· 10 Case Study
10.1 Introduction to the Case Study 10.2 Multiple Perspectives 10.3 Exploring the Context 10.4 Taking Sides 10.5 Debating Whether to Act 10.6 Challenging Credibility
Ethics / 9.2 Practice: Ethical Claims Questions: 0 of 7 complete (0%) | 0 of 3 correct (0%)
Practice: Ethical Claims
Is It Ethical to Refuse to Hire Smokers?
The following pair of articles, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2013, explore the controversies surrounding the question of whether or not it is ethically appropriate for institutions to adopt policies of not hiring smokers.
Read the two articles below, then answer the following questions.
Conflicts and Compromises in Not Hiring Smokers
The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers
Which of the following provides the BEST generalization about the two articles?
· Both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” recognize the moral dilemma at stake, but “Conflicts” ultimately takes a stance against the practice while “Ethics” argues in favor of it.
· After analyzing the moral dilemma at stake, both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” conclude that it is ethical to adapt a practice of not hiring smokers.
· Both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” recognize the moral dilemma at stake, but “Conflicts” ultimately takes a stance in favor of the practice while “Ethics” argues against it.
· After analyzing the moral dilemma at stake, both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” conclude that it is unethical to adapt a practice of not hiring smokers.
Save
Which of the following statements from the articles has a moral dimension?
· Finding employment is becoming increasingly difficult for smokers.
· Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 440,000 deaths in the United States each year.
· It is fair to exclude smokers because they are responsible for raising health care costs.
· About 70 percent of smokers say they want to quit, but only 2 to 3 percent succeed each year.
Save
Using the information in these two articles, explain how an institution’s decision whether or not to adopt policies against hiring smokers is a moral dilemma.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Submit ?
Your Turn
·
Top of Form
In “Conflicts,” click the link to view the figure titled “Proposed Ladder of Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use.” In your opinion, what is the highest ladder rung where the practice described is still ethical? Explain.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Post ?
Bottom of Form
Which of the following arguments does the “Conflicts” article use to justify moving up the intervention ladder?
· Smokers choose to smoke, so they deserve the penalizing actions prescribed on the higher rungs.
· Smokers appreciate it when institutions adopt the practices higher up the ladder.
· The prescribed actions on the lower rungs haven’t done enough to deter people from smoking.
· Companies would save a lot of money in health insurance if they fenced out smokers.
Save
Your Turn
·
Top of Form
According to “Ethics,” health care organizations posed the argument that “their employees must serve as role models for patients and that only nonsmokers can do so.” Explain whether you agree or disagree with that statement, and why.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Post ?
Bottom of Form
Poll
After reading both articles, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: It is unethical to refuse to hire smokers.
Top of Form
· Strongly agree
· Agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Disagree
· Strongly disagree
Ethics / 9.3 Ethical Reasoning Questions: 0 of 3 complete (0%) | 0 of 2 correct (0%)
Ethical Reasoning
Can we reason about something as seemingly subjective as right and wrong? Well, we’re in real trouble if we can’t. We do it every day. And ethical reasoning forms a part of the most important decisions we make as individuals, organizations, and a society. Consider the following questions:
Should I forgive my brother?
Should we pay our employees based on the value they generate?
Should our country go to war?
Just like arguments for anything else, arguments for right and wrong make claims and employ reasoning in which premises are offered to support a conclusion.
Premise: Jason plagiarized his term paper.
Premise: Plagiarism is wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jason was wrong to plagiarize his term paper.
Going beyond true or false to draw a conclusion about right and wrong is what makes this particular argument an ethical one. Such arguments often follow this basic pattern:
1. Premise that makes an amoral statement about a specific situation (simple fact)
2. Premise that makes a moral statement about a moral principle (right or wrong)
3. Conclusion that demonstrates a moral statement regarding the specific situation
Premise: Panhandlers often spend the money that passers-by give them on alcohol and drugs. (amoral claim stated as a simple fact)
Premise: It’s wrong to give people money that is going to be spent on alcohol and drugs. (moral statement about a moral principle)
Conclusion: Therefore, you should stop giving money to panhandlers. (conclusion that demonstrates how the moral statement applies to the specific situation)
The ethical arguments we encounter daily typically have an unstated ethical statement (an enthymeme). For instance, you’d be more likely to hear the above argument stated as something like:
Panhandlers usually just spend the money that passers-by give them on alcohol and drugs, so you should stop giving them your cash.
Formal analysis is easier when you articulate the implied claim that “You shouldn’t give people money that is going to be spent on alcohol and drugs.” Likewise, you might hear the earlier example abbreviated as “Jason plagiarized his term paper, so he was in the wrong,” hiding the implied claim that “plagiarism is wrong.”
Articulating the implied moral claim uncovers the deductive syllogism, making it easier to analyze, and calls attention to the assumed moral statement to enable scrutiny. Just like with any valid deductive argument, you would want to analyze the truth of both premises before you accept the conclusion about what you “should” be doing.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Consider the following ethical argument:
1. Driving while intoxicated puts the lives of others at risk.
2. It is wrong to put the lives of others at risk.
3. Therefore, driving while intoxicated is wrong.
Which of the following explains why premise number 2 is a “moral statement about a moral principle”?
· It’s an objective statement that can be backed up by statistics.
· It makes a claim about risk.
· It applies a moral principle to a specific situation.
· It’s a general statement about how something is right or wrong.
Save
Marquell says, “Stem cell research is wrong, because it often involves the destruction of human embryos.” What is the implied moral statement in Marquell’s enthymeme?
· Stem cell research is not likely to cure any diseases.
· Marquell has personal experience with stem cell research.
· It is wrong to research cures for diseases.
· It is wrong to destroy human embryos.
Save
Why is it often beneficial to articulate the assumed moral statement in a moral argument, such as in the example above?
Ethics / 9.4 Practice: Ethical Reasoning Questions: 0 of 6 complete (0%) | 0 of 3 correct (0%)
Practice: Ethical Reasoning
A Dietary Dilemma
There are many reasons that people choose a vegetarian diet, and sometimes those reasons are ethical ones. But are there also ethical arguments for why you shouldn’t be a vegetarian? In 2012, the New York Times ran a contest to see who could come up with the most persuasive argument in favor of eating meat. In response to this contest, a blogger offers his own moral argument for why eating meat is unethical.
Read the two articles below, and then answer the following questions.
A Simple Argument for Vegetarianism
What assumption did the New York Times “Ethicist” contest call into question?
· It is natural and right to eat meat.
· Eating meat causes suffering to animals.
· It is possible to avoid meat and still enjoy a healthy diet.
· Meat-eaters don’t care about animal suffering.
Save
In the ethical argument that the author of “A Simple Argument” presents, which of the following statements functions as the amoral statement of the argument?
· Trivial human interests don’t justify overriding or disregarding vital animal interests.
· Meat-eating causes avoidable suffering.
· It’s wrong, other things being equal, to be the cause of avoidable suffering.
· Therefore, meat-eating is wrong.
Save
Your Turn
Top of Form
The author thinks more people will argue with the second statement. Why do you think this is (or is not) the case?
No response saved yet. Save Draft Post ?
Bottom of Form
What is the central argument of “Give Thanks to Meat”?
No response saved yet. Save Draft Submit ?
The author of “A Simple Argument” suggests that the pleasure derived from eating meat is the only human interest at stake in the activity, but the author of “Give Thanks” argues that eating meat also has which of the following benefits?
· feeding your family a nutritious diet
· providing financial support to farmers who raise livestock
· living in the most ecologically benign way
· preventing animal overpopulation
Save
Your Turn
·
Top of Form
List two explicit premises that you find most compelling in “Give Thanks to Meat.”
Ethics / 9.5 Moral Theories Questions: 0 of 3 complete (0%) | 0 of 2 correct (0%)
Moral Theories
All moral claims are grounded in some moral theory. It is the nature of such claims that they are based on a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
The table below lists a handful of the moral theories you are most likely to encounter in ethical arguments today. It’s important to note that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Moral theories give you general guidelines, but you still usually have to apply moral reasoning in individual cases to test them out. For example, none of these theories explicitly claims that killing is wrong. The theories are more about how you would ground your claim that killing is wrong.
Moral theories are also not mutually exclusive. The argument that killing is wrong could be grounded in all of these theories.
Whether they know it or not, everyone has a moral theory. It is inescapable. Even if their moral theory is that there are no morals, that still represents a moral theory. But not all moral theories are equal—some hold up to critical thinking better than others.
You may see wisdom in all of these perspectives, or you may strongly identify with a single one. Regardless, it’s important for you to recognize the potential weaknesses in any moral theory you favor, and it’s helpful for you to understand why others find legitimacy in the moral theories they employ.
