Module 2: Critical Thinking in Ethics

1. Module 2: Critical Thinking in Ethics Philosophy 240: Introductory Ethics Online CCBC Author: Daniel G. Jenkins, MA

2. Module Goals: After completing readings, presentations, discussions, and coursework for this module, you will be able to: • Identify and explain core features of the philosophical approach to Ethics • Apply critical thinking techniques to the study of Ethics • Identify and avoid unacceptable approaches to ethical decision-making

3. The Nature of Moral Facts • In Module 1 you learned that the basis of morality is reason; our uniquely human capacity to look at things objectively, free from emotional biases that bind us to bad thinking and false ideas. • In this module you will learn the role of reason in determining moral facts, and begin to cultivate the critical thinking skills that will help you apply reason to moral deliberation.

4. Philosophy and Science Diverge • In Module 1 it was mentioned that Thales, in successfully predicting a solar eclipse, heralded a beginning for philosophy inasmuch as he demonstrated the awesome power of reason in understanding, anticipating, and possibly influencing the world. • It was also mentioned that Thales had sown the seeds of science as well as philosophy, and indeed this is the case. • How is it that science and philosophy have addressed matters differently even though their emphasis on objective inquiry through reason is the same?

5. Science considers more concrete matters, while philosophy is involved with the abstract. • (If the subject interests you, a more complex and accurate answer is available. Nobel Prize winning philosopher and humanitarian Bertrand Russell addresses the divergence of science and philosophy in his essay “The Value of Philosophy.” You may click here to read it online. The 4th paragraph in particular is relevant to our discussion. Russell is regarded as one of the most readable, articulate, influential, and important philosophers of the 20th century. )

6. The Scientific Method • By now you have probably already been exposed to the scientific method, but a brief summary here may prove useful. • Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. • It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. • A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

7. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. • These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.

8. For example, say we wanted to test a (fictional) new plastic material that we would like to use in the manufacture of boats • We’ll call this new material New Plastic.

9. We must utilize the scientific method to investigate the matter. • Since we come to the experiment biased, we have to be especially dedicated to objectivity. It is not enough that New Plastic merely float, but that it has at least the same properties of buoyancy and elasticity that regular boat-building materials must have in order to guarantee safety and longevity.

10. But the first step in our investigation involves seeing if the material actually floats, or floats as well as traditional materials. • Our hypothesis, based on the weight and chemical composition of New Plastic, is that it floats in water and can carry the same weight as ordinary plastic.

11. Using the scientific method, we set up a control group and an experimental group. • We measure factors like water displacement, and material wear, and so on. • If the properties of New Plastic are at least those of ordinary materials, then our hypothesis has been confirmed (though, technically speaking, you can never confirm any hypothesis; you can merely fail to reject it, but I digress).

12. Now imagine applying the scientific method to morality. Let’s use the case of Baby Teresa, discussed in the first chapter of your textbook, to aid us in this thought experiment.

13. Baby Teresa • Consider the following. Baby Teresa is, due to a congenital disorder, born anencephalic. • That is, she is in essence born without a brain. • She does have a brain stem, which controls autonomic functions like breathing and heart rate.

14. As a result of her condition, Baby Teresa is almost certain to die a very short time after birth. • Even if she did survive, Teresa would be a “vegetable” for her entire life, never able to think or feel or have meaningful relationships with others. • She would have to be hospitalized indefinitely, never able to care for herself.

15. Teresa’s parents do not want their child’s life to be wasted, and volunteer Teresa’s organs, like kidneys, heart, liver, etc., which are healthy, to help save other children. • Knowing their child is very likely to die anyway, and that even if she lives her quality of life would be poor, Teresa’s parents volunteer Teresa’s organs in an effort to generate some moral good.

16. If doctors wait until Teresa dies naturally, without intervention (which, again, is likely to happen), Teresa’s organs will be damaged by the process of dying and be unsuitable for transplant to other children. • If doctors act in accordance with the wishes of Teresa’s parents, they must willfully end a human life.

17. What is the right thing to do? • There are two ethical positions at work in this scenario, and they are at odds. • One maintains that it is acceptable to end Teresa’s life because more good is generated by doing so than by letting her live or by letting her die naturally. • The other maintains that positive consequences do not justify ending a human life.

18. These positions embody specific systems of ethical decision-making that we will talk about at length later in this course. • The first position, the idea that positive consequences are what make an act moral, is called “Consequentialism.” • The second position, the idea that positive consequences do not justify violating a moral rule, is known as “Deontology.”

19. It is easy to see the merit of both positions. On the one hand, we do good by saving multiple lives even at the cost of one life, and on the other hand, we do good by saying that no human life is expendable.

20. Enter the Ethical Dilemma • We have a genuine ethical dilemma – that is, we have competing goods, and each good comes at the expense of violating another moral norm. • To get one moral good, we must sacrifice another, and we are unsure which moral good is more important. • (Note what an ethical dilemma is not: it is not knowing what is wrong and wanting to do it anyway, but having to choose between two mutually exclusive goods).

21. Applying the Scientific Method to Ethics • If we were to use the scientific method to discover the morally right thing to do in this scenario, how would we design the experiment? What would the hypothesis be, and how would we gather data? What would the moral consequences be of such experimentation? Take a moment to think about this before advancing to the next slide.

22. We see that the scientific method cannot be applied to moral questions, because moral issues pertain to human beings who are equally valuable; we cannot justify “experimenting” when human life is at stake. • We cannot both kill and not kill two anencephalic babies to test our hypothesis. We cannot quantify human life. So, how are we to test our hypotheses about right and wrong?

23. The nature of moral facts • We want to make the choice that is backed by better reasons than competing alternatives. • This is because moral facts are facts of reason; they are truths revealed by objective consideration of relevant facts, and should not be influenced by emotional ties to what may be bad ideas. • In this way we can have some degree of certainty about our hypothesis before we act; if the results are not congruent with what we believe to be moral, we can reconsider our hypothesis and revise it.

24. For example, assume our hypothesis is that it is always good to preserve human life, regardless of the good that ending that life may generate for other human beings. • If this deontological hypothesis can truly be backed with the philosophical rigor required in Ethics, we must have better reasons for believing our hypothesis (human life ought never be ended) than the competing consequentialist alternative (human life ought be ended if it generates great benefit to others).

25. If we act on this hypothesis and discover that it does not preserve the values we thought it would, we are free to revise our hypothesis before acting in future scenarios. • But what we cannot do is act on our hypothesis and act on a competing hypothesis; if we really believe our hypothesis represents the moral good, we cannot justify acting contrary to it.

26. To summarize so far… • Critical thinking in Ethics requires utilization of our uniquely human faculty of reason. Reason allows us to approach moral questions objectively, in a manner similar to the way science approaches questions objectively. • Discovering the facts of Ethics differs from the way we discover facts in science; in science, you can test a hypothesis using the scientific method, but in Ethics you cannot experiment when morality and human beings are concerned. • In Ethics, we demand that our hypotheses be backed by better reasons than competing alternatives before we act. We can revise our hypotheses later, if we believe we’ve been mistaken about how to act in congruence with our values. • Moral facts are facts of reason; they are truths revealed by objective consideration of relevant information, and should not be influenced by emotional ties to what may be bad ideas.

27. How do we determine facts of reason? • In philosophy the idea is that it is the responsibility of someone making a claim to provide good reasons for believing that claim, and not on a person refuting a claim to prove that the claim is inaccurate. • We call this the burden of proof. In philosophy, the burden of proof always lies with whoever makes a claim, not with whoever disputes a claim.

28. Let’s investigate the underpinnings of this idea. • Imagine that a friend comes to you and says “You know, aliens exist.” You might respond by saying “well, my friend, you’d have a hard time proving that aliens exist.” Whereupon your friend replies “yes, but you can’t prove that aliens don’t exist. Therefore, I conclude that aliens exist.” We see the consequences of taking a position contrary to that endorsed by philosophy – we could believe anything. • Let’s look at another example.

29. The Invisible Dragon • I have a dragon in my garage. No, really. It has wings and fire-breath, it hordes treasure and tells riddles, and so on. According to philosophy, it is my job to show you that I do, indeed, have a dragon in my garage. If we reject philosophical burden of proof, it is no longer my job to show you I have a dragon, but is instead your job to show that I do not.

30. Now, if it is your responsibility to show me that I do not have a dragon, how would you go about doing so? Take a moment to think of how you would investigate the matter to determine whether I have or don’t have an invisible dragon in my garage. Once you have thought of a few ways in which you’d determine the veracity of my statement, advance to the next slide.

31. The obvious task is to come over to my garage, raise the door, and see if there’s a dragon inside. Let’s pretend that you do so, and you see no dragon, though I insist that there’s a dragon in there. You’re ready to conclude that there is no dragon, right?

32. Not so fast! I tell you that the dragon is invisible. If it’s not my job to show that I have an invisible dragon, but your job to show that I do not, how would you refute my claim that I have an invisible dragon in my garage? Take a moment to think about this before advancing to the next slide.

33. You might say that you could walk into the garage and see if you bump into the dragon, even though you can’t see it. Or, you could throw paint into the air and see if it lands on a dragon-shape. Or you could sprinkle powder or sand on the floor and wait for my invisible dragon to leave visible dragon-prints. • If any of these tests yield evidence of a dragon, you can conclude that there’s a dragon. But let’s say that you do all of these things, find no evidence of my dragon, and are ready to conclude that I have no invisible dragon in my garage.

34. But wait! I say that my dragon, in addition to being invisible, is also ethereal, which is to say it lacks a corporeal form. It is like a ghost. It can pass through physical objects and objects can pass through it. • I go on to say that, in fact, my dragon leaves no trace of any kind – it eats no food, generates no waste, gives off no heat, uses no oxygen and otherwise gives no evidence of its existence. • There is, essentially, no way that you could ever refute the existence of a dragon in my garage.

35. Now, let me ask you a very important question: what is the difference between my dragon and no dragon at all? Think about this before advancing to the next slide.

36. If you said the answer is “none,” you’re correct. There is no difference between my invisible, ethereal, weightless, heatless, completely silent dragon and no dragon whatsoever.

37. If we reject philosophy’s idea of the burden of proof we have no choice but to accept that I have a dragon. • We see that our rule is very useful – the responsibility is on someone making a claim to show that their claim is the case, and the responsibility is not on someone refuting a claim to show that it is not the case. • In sticking to this rule of the burden of proof we avoid accepting absurdities like invisible dragons that distract us from the truth.

38. If we cannot conclusively or compellingly say that something is the case, this does not mean you can conclude with equal confidence that it is or is not the case. • In other words, many people walk away from this discussion of burden of proof and say, “Ah, well the burden was on me to show that aliens exist, and I couldn’t, so I guess we can accept either claim, that is, we can accept, with an equitable degree of intellectual honesty, that aliens do or do not exist.” This is wholly incorrect. • If you cannot make a compelling case for your claim, you must assume that your claim is incorrect.

39. Now that we have established this rule we can talk more concretely about the role of reason in determining moral facts. • We can look at the case made for every moral claim and see which one makes the most sense. If no one automatically assumes they are correct, we stand a better chance of uncovering moral facts.

40. Backing up our claims • As we go about making arguments for any claim, moral or otherwise, we need to be aware of what types of arguments there are. We don’t merely want to be persuasive, especially if persuasiveness comes at the expense of intellectual honesty. • As we will see, some types of arguments, while effective, are unacceptable in philosophy, and others, while more difficult to formulate, satisfy our desire to use reason.

41. Rhetoric • Rhetoric is the art of skillful and effective communication, persuasion, and argumentation. Note that this word is pronounced “red-er-ick” like “Frederick” without the “F. ” This is very important, especially because the more common variant of the root word, one that you have probably encountered, is “rhetorical,” and has a different pronunciation. • One of the most valuable things you will get from a college education is proving to the world that you are a college educated person, and you wont get that if you go around saying things like “ra-tour-ick.” Remember: rhetoric = “red-er-ick” and rhetorical = “ra-tour-ick-al.”

42. If rhetoric is the art of skillful and effective communication, persuasion, and argumentation, then when we say something is rhetorical we mean that it is designed to be persuasive. We most often use this term when describing certain questions as being “rhetorical questions,” that is, questions designed to persuade rather than get a response. For example, the question “you don’t want higher taxes, do you? Well, do you?” isn’t designed to elicit an answer from you but to persuade you that you don’t want higher taxes.

43. Denotation and Connotation • One of the most powerful rhetorical tools is the use of connotation. A word’s denotation refers to its dictionary definition, while its connotation refers to whatever other associations a word has that are not part of its dictionary definition. Connotation is not only useful in rhetoric, but also useful in the literary arts. Without connotation, poems and novels would be impossible to produce effectively.

44. But let’s focus on connotation in rhetoric. The words “row-house” and “townhome” have the same denotation, that is, they have the same dictionary definition: “One of a group of an unbroken line of attached houses that share common side walls. The building has a single continuous wall along the street.” • Do the connotations of “row-house” and “townhome” differ? Before advancing to the next slide, take a moment to make a short list of things you think of when hear the word “row-house” and when you hear the word “townhome.”

45. Often, when we hear the term “row-house” we think of many things in addition to its dictionary definition. Common associations include urban living, low income, and safety issues. • However, when people hear the term “townhome,” they think of suburban living, perhaps wealth, and safety.

46. It is easy to see how connotations provide such a valuable tool. Consider this rhetorical question: “Would you pay 500 thousand dollars for a row-house?” • It will be our job in Ethics to avoid using connotations unfairly. We will try to accomplish this through using objective and neutral language as much as possible.

47. Unfair uses of connotation • Let’s apply our knowledge of connotation to the case of Baby Teresa. • Let’s say an advocate of deontological Ethics is arguing for Teresa’s life to be extended as long as possible, regardless of the consequences for other babies that might benefit from Teresa’s organs. • If harvesting Teresa’s organs will result in Teresa’s death, our deontology advocate might say: “Harvesting Teresa’s organs is murder.” • This is unfair. Murder connotes malice, ill-intent, and disregard for life, when we know that if Teresa’s organs were harvested it would be out of respect for the lives of other children that would be saved and out of a desire to contribute to the moral good.

48. Now let’s imagine a consequentialist using connotation unfairly. Our imaginary consequentialist wants to argue in favor of harvesting Teresa’s organs, and says: “Harvesting Teresa’s organs terminates Teresa’s life.” • What sorts of things do we terminate? Insects, and unresponsive computer programs. Surely we don’t want to rob Teresa of all her humanity. • This is an unfair use of connotation because Teresa still meets at least some criteria for being a human being, and in using language like “terminate” we obfuscate what we are doing to Teresa. Both the terms “murder” and “terminate” confuse the issue to the same degree.

49. We have to be very careful to avoid utilizing connotation to an unfair advantage. • We do know that harvesting Teresa’s organs is, like it or not, a form of killing, but not all kinds of killing are murders and not all kinds of killing are terminations. • In being aware of how ourselves and others can abuse connotation, we will become more critical thinkers, we will pay attention to the facts, and we will not be swayed by inflammatory connotations. • In Ethics, we want to focus on objective, neutral language; the subject matter is difficult enough already.

50. Argument • In addition to using objective and neutral language, we insist on making special kinds of arguments in philosophy in general and in Ethics in particular. • When we say “argument,” we do not mean a screaming match or a mere disagreement. By the term argument we mean a rhetorical attempt at persuasion.