Philosophical Service Final Topic: Project- Polyamory and Monogamy For this assignment, you will perform some “philosophical community service.” The service you will provide is demonstrating to some

Two very important questions for thinking about moral issues:

1. WHY THINK THAT?  ‘That’ = the conclusion; ‘Why’ = the premise(s)

2. WHAT DO YOU MEAN?  Need to understand the claims so we can try to figure out whether they are true or false. 

Need to be precise : Is someone claiming whatever of  Some ? All ? All possible ? Which ? 

Get clear on the meaning s of words. Lots of ethical debat es involve words that need to be carefully defined.

Basic concepts about arguments:

1. Argument = a  conclusion  supported by a  premise  or  premises ; premise (s) that support a  conclusion.

Moral conclusions:

Doing X is morally wrong . (= imper missible; we are obligated to not do).

Doing X is morally permissible . (‘Right ’ can mean this, so avoid the word). (Permissible = not wrong )

Doing X is morally obligatory . (‘Right ’ can mean this, so avoid the word). (Obligatory = wrong to not do ).

We can be, and should be, precise: doing X in these specific circumstances is wrong, etc.

2. “Logically valid argument ” = an a rgument where, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; also the complete or

full structure of the reasoning is stated. E.g.:

Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. 

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. or

Socrates is a man. If someone is a man, then that someone is mortal.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That patte rn of logically valid argument is called a  simple syllogism: 

A is an X; all X's are Y ’s; therefore , A is a Y.   

Other patterns:  

mod us ponens :  If P, then Q; P; therefore Q. Or: If  this  is true, then  that  is true;  this  is true; therefore , that  is true.  

modus tollens : If P, then Q; not Q; therefore , not P. Or: If  this  is true, then  that  is true;  that  is not true;

therefore , this  is not true. “If a false claim logically follows from P, then P is false. ” E.g., “If only

blue -eyed people had the right to life, then ___. But ___, so it's not true that only blue eyed people

have the right to life.”

3.  Sound arguments  = logically v alid argument with true premises and, thus, true conclusions. 

 In moral arguments, there are often  factual or scientific premises . Are they true or not? Need scientific evidence.

 In moral arguments there are also often general  moral principles,  premises that assert that, e.g.,  All actions like X are

wrong , If an action has X & Y features, then that action is obligatory , etc.

 Evaluate moral principles by (1) seeing if they are morally explanatory and (2) if there are  counterexamples  to them,

that is, cases or examples that would show the general premise to be false. 

Further concepts:

A type of action being  prima facie  wrong , prima facie  permissible,  prima facie  obligatory. 

prima facie  wrong  = a type of action that is typically wrong, or wrong unles s extreme circumstances justify doing it. 

Why mention this? Some say, “There are exceptions to every rule. ” This might not be true, but even if is, we can identify

types of actions that are at least nearly always wrong, nearly always permissible, nearly a lways obligatory. 

Begging the question . = assuming a conclusion in a premise, perhaps by restating the conclusion in a premise but in slightly different

words; giving a premise that someone would accept only if he or she already accepted the conclusion , thus assuming the conclusion. 

Necessary , Sufficient and Necessary & Sufficient Conditions – see other handouts ; Google.

Some Other Concerns:

1. The law and ethics.  Response:  Law and morality are different: immoral actions are sometimes legal or not criminal (e.g.

______); the law can  require  immoral actions (e.g. ______); morally permissible actions c an be, a nd sometimes are, illegal (e.g._ )

2. Religion and ethics:  Many responses  . . ;  least combative response : if a religion, church, religious figure, religious text, God,

etc. has claim about what ’s moral, either that source has  reasons  in support of that view or not. If not, i.e., no reasons, th en the

view is arbitrary (it ’s “random ”). If there are reasons, then anyone should be able to evaluat e those reasons. Religion needn ’t be

an obstacle to moral reasoning, since we can share and evaluate our reasons.

3. “That's what we do, it ’s our tradition; it ’s what they do, it ’s their practice; it ’s ‘right to them ’ or ‘wrong to them ’; that's ‘right

to us ’ or ‘wrong to us ’. Response:  individuals and communities can be mistaken; they can be wrong. We want to make progress.

4. “I or we like doing that. It ’s pleasu rable; we enjoy doing that. ” Response : morality is more than just you and your pleasures,

especially when someone else is or might be harmed.