Chapter 6 Self-Check Questions

. True or false: we should always make sure we understand an argument before trying to evaluate it.

True

False

. An Argument from Principle is a bad argument -- one that fails to give you reason to think its conclusion is true -- if, and only if:

One or both of its premises is false.

Its conclusion sounds counterintuitive or false to you.

You can think of a different argument for an opposing conclusion.

One, but not both, of its premises is false.

. An objection to an argument is a proposed reason to think an argument is not a good one. Evaluating arguments requires thinking through possible objections and deciding if there's a way to defend the argument against them. To raise objections to moral principles (premise 1 of an Argument from Principle), philosophers try to find:

Illustrative examples.

Moral claims

Descriptive claims.

Counterexamples.

. A counterexample to a moral principle is:

A specific case in which a moral principle clearly and uncontroversially gives good guidance (it says something is right when it actually is right, etc.)

A general reason to think the principle is false.

A new moral principle that has different implications than the principle in the argument.

A specific case in which a moral principle clearly and uncontroversially gives bad guidance (it says something is right when it actually is not right, etc.).

. An effective counterexample to a moral principle must be one that is:

Explained in way that makes sense to you, even if others don't understand your point.

Clear and compelling for those who share your political and social values.

Accessible and easy to understand for (nearly) everyone in the target audience, even if they don't agree with your judgments about the case you're describing.

Described in a way that (nearly) everyone in the target audience can understand and about which they will agree the moral principle clearly gives bad guidance.

. Suppose someone gave this argument: "Surgery is morally permissible only if it is necessary to promote the physical health of the body. SRS does not promote the physical health of the body. So, SRS is not morally permissible." When evaluating this argument, which part of it would you test by trying to identify a counterexample?

Surgery is morally permissible only if it is necessary to promote the physical health of the body.

SRS does not promote the physical health of the body.

SRS is not morally permissible.

None -- there is no part of this argument you could try to test using the method of counterexample.

. Suppose you are evaluating an argument that relies on the following principle: "Surgery is morally permissible only if it effectively promotes the well-being of the person getting it." To find a counterexample to this principle, you'd need to identify a specific case in which:

Something that is not a surgical procedure clearly and uncontroversially is morally permissible and effectively promotes the well-being of the person getting it.

A surgical procedure is clearly and uncontroversially morally permissible but does not effectively promote the well-being of the person getting it.

A surgical procedure effectively promotes the well-being of the person getting it but is clearly and uncontroversially not morally permissible.

A surgical procedure is clearly and uncontroversially not morally permissible and does not effectively promote the well-being of the person getting it.

. Suppose you're evaluating an Argument from Principle with the following principle: "Breaking the law is morally wrong." Which of the following is the best counterexample to this principle?

Sometimes breaking the law is not wrong.

Serial killers break the law when they murder people to satisfy their sick desires. This is clearly morally wrong.

It is not morally wrong to drive as fast as you safely and responsibly can, instead of obeying the speed limit, to get a seriously injured friend to the hospital in time for doctors to save her life.

Driving while intoxicated is illegal, but it's not wrong.

. After you've identified a counterexample to a moral principle, you're not done evaluating the argument. The next step is to think about whether there's a way to defend the argument against the counterexample. In general, the two ways to defend a moral principle against a counterexample are to [pick the 2 correct answers]:

Show that the moral principle does not actually give bad guidance in the case described in the counterexample.

Show that the moral principle gives good guidance in some cases, even if it gives bad guidance in the case described in the counterexample.

Modify the principle so that it avoids the counterexample but implies the same conclusion as the original argument.

Show that the person defending the counterexample has some false beliefs about other subjects.

. Suppose someone makes this argument: "Lying is always morally wrong. Therefore, political campaigning is always wrong, because it is a form of lying." When this argument is represented in standard form using the General Form of Argument from Principle, you could raise objections to premise 2 by trying to show that:

There are cases in which lying is not morally wrong.

Political campaigning is not a form of lying.

There are cases where political campaigning is morally permissible.

Even if political campaigning is lying, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong.

Quiz Content