A Brief Introduction to Ethical Argumentation

© 2000-2002 Darren Witwer  
click for printable Word version

Darren's Six Forces Model of Justice and Community

The Scope of Ethics

Ethics is the study of and reflection upon human action.  It constitutes a wide range of philosophical issues and modes of argumentation.  As an example, I will provide you my personal vision of the scope of Ethics.  Examine the spectrum of ideas and issues it relates to:  

That we exist is self-evident, but not assured or permanent.  That we exist in a social context is increasingly less optional.  That it is preferable to live amidst equality and justice for every single person is apparently a controversial idea, or at least one that evokes all sorts of convoluted apologies for injustice and inequality.  That our actions shall be governed by laws is obviously expedient, but the source of those mandates is also a subject of great debate.  Though we share a common humanity, there is much diversity of opinion as to the specific laws. 

The first statement underscores the simple fact that humans do exist, and that our existence is temporary and dependent upon many things such as a healthy environment.  The second statement points out that our actions do not occur in a vacuum.  They have great potential to affect others.  As our society develops, these interconnections and interdependencies become stronger and more complex.  There are fewer places to go in order to escape that interdependency.  Social groupings of people depend on each other for various things.  Honesty as a mandate is perhaps the only example we have of a universal law. Many would argue that it is the least respected of the laws.  You can imagine many other laws and manners involved in any relationship of social interdependency.  

The third remark illustrates the divergence between those who value equality and those who value liberty.  Ethical conflicts have many forms and many battlefields.  The remark also betrays my own bias to prefer equality to liberty.  You should always try to be alert to biases like these--even when they belong to your professor.  The philosopher Mortimer Adler wisely defined justice as the effective balancing of equality and liberty.  Obviously the recipes of balance, or even intentional imbalance are many and varied.  The last remark sets forth the fundamental notion of law, whether that law be devised democratically, or from Scripture, or from Reason.  It goes on to underscore the many differences there are between us.  Some thinkers assert that ethical precepts are absolute and eternal. Others believe they are completely conventional and culturally relative.  Most religions see them as revealed through scriptures or oral traditions. 

That is a summary of the scope of ethics.  It deals with all the questions of what is right and wrong, and how we as humans can best get along with each other and our environment. 

What is Ethics?

Ethical arguments always begin from metaphysical philosophical assumptions: is there a soul?  What is its nature?  Is there a Divine Being? Do we have obligations to this Divine Being?  Where do rights originate?  Do they exist at all?  What is evil?  Why is there evil?  Religion is the domain that provides the answers to these questions, and the answers provided by religion have profoundly influenced and guided the history of philosophy.  As religion has lost some of its control on the thinking of humanity, philosophy has made a variety of attempts to break away from the traditional metaphysical assumptions underlying philosophy in general and ethics in particular.  

This does not mean that modern ethical argumentation does not have metaphysical assumptions.  Instead, we need to examine the shift in metaphysical focus from faith and tradition to reason and science.  During the past 10-20 years, there has been a concerted effort to return to the traditional, religious mandates. 
As an academic discipline, Ethics provides a forum to teach students to make and evaluate moral arguments without reference to religious assumptions.  As a branch of philosophy and a discipline of education, the purpose of Ethics is to teach us to contemplate, articulate and negotiate behavior.  Unlike a Religion, which usually aims to teach us specific actions, Ethics is a mode of thinking and communicating that designed for 

Religions generally concern themselves with Ethics.  Most religious scholars (excluding myself) would state that not all Ethics are Religions.  Most ethical theories developed in the last 200 years are explicitly non-religious in nature.  Even the most overtly religious institutions have been developing more or less scientific arguments for their positions.  Ethics can be a pure and abstract discipline of thinking and communicating.  Ethics can exist without actions to reify the cogitations of the philosopher, but I doubt that such frivolous thinking and talking would satisfy many of us.  Ethics is clearly worthless unless it is applied to real life situations in such a way that certain actions are taken.  Religion itself is utterly abstract and pragmatically meaningless until it reaches into the domain of ethics.  It is for this reason that I personally set the definition of religion as any set of metaphysical convictions about ultimate reality that tend to affect our actions. 

Further, Ethics can be taught from a number of different methodological perspectives.  The two most important ones are what I refer to as vocational ethics and philosophical ethics.  In vocational ethics, students learn various procedures and laws that govern their behavior within a specific domain--business, law enforcement, medicine, and information management.  In philosophical ethics, students focus their attention on the theoretical constructs upon which ethical judgments and arguments are made.  The former approach emphasizes specific content and legalistic interpretation.  In a sense, it is similar to a religion.  It answers the questions: What is ethical behavior in this context?  What is unethical behavior in this context?  Why? This methodology is based upon the assumption that there are right and wrong answers to those questions.  The latter emphasizes the process of argumentation independent of scriptural or legal mandates.  This is not typical of religious discourse.  Students are invited to question ethical assumptions, ethical theories and assemble specific arguments.  The former will emphasize the memorization of laws and examination of case studies.  The latter will emphasize reading of ethical philosophers and analysis of arguments.  We can mix the two approaches, but they are very different in nature.  

If we accept the rather broad definition of religion I have provided, then we could describe any accepted and applied ethical system as a form of religion.  It is based on a metaphysical foundation and it affects human activity and thought.  Such a definition is extremely broad in scope, but it strikes me that more limiting definitions depend upon arbitrary parameters biased toward typical Western-style religions, and give the illusion that there are no metaphysical assumptions implicit in agnosticism or atheism.

We can divide the Ethical Process into five modes or phases.  They are not necessarily chronological sequence:

1) Contextualizing--gathering the facts, examining the elements and their contexts.  

2) Setting Priorities--deciding which results or rules shall be given highest priority.  This should involve a close evaluation of those priorities.

3) Reasoning--synthesizing information in such a way as to achieve the priority, taking into account the contextual features of the issue.  For help with improving your skills at this, study this web site: On Argument: By Peter Landry He explains the terminology, shows the common errors, and gives the proper forms of logical argumentation.

4) Evaluating contrary reasoning--honest examination and response to rebuttals and counter-arguments.  

5) Decision & Action--once the reasoning and evaluation are complete, the ethical process is finalized in a decision that is acted upon, or legislated as a law and enforced.  

Each of these steps involves different procedures, and each step presents special problems.  The most common errors or failures of Ethical argumentation involve skipping step one and step four.  It is also common to apply flawed reasoning.  Lastly, it is not unusual for a person to make certain ethical decisions and statements, but not back those up with actions.  

A sixth phase perhaps should be included, but it is not necessary or universal.  That sixth phase would be an assessment of the results.  For instance, if a society establishes certain laws relating to ethical issues, and the result of that law is not what they expected, then they might scrutinize, modify, or abandon it.  In this case, the sixth phase is a self-regulating feedback loop that feeds the output of the fifth phase back into the first.  

Let's take a closer look at problems of Ethical discussion.  If I begin with the assumption that a certain sacred text provides all the answers to my questions, then I am setting priorities—to follow the Dharma, the Tao, or God’s law.  The first step, the contextual step, is often overlooked.  Instead of gathering information from observation or democratic process, it is common that religious people will ignore such empirical details and rely entirely on what their scripture says.  When confronted with an opposing argument based on the observation of reality, there is potential for profound disagreement and lack of communication.  One of the core issues in the public arena of ethical debate is whether or not religion is necessary for teaching ethical behavior to children.  I think that there is ample evidence to suggest that agnostics can be very moral and that the most devout of religious people have occasionally demonstrated capacity for profound evil.  

Here is another good example of philosophical infelicity: person a believes that in matters that affect nobody else that the individual should have the ultimate say in what is right or wrong. Person b believes that certain laws of behavior are absolute and immutable, and can be traced to natural or philosophical laws.  When these people argue, they generally fail to connect.  They are operating on completely different wavelengths.  This problem is related to step two in that the priority of a is personal freedom, while b emphasizes the absolute nature of law.  Obviously, two completely incompatible applications of step three follow.  Moving on to step four is difficult, and consensus is impossible.  It is for this reason that step of the process is extremely useful.

Types of Ethical Arguments

The purpose of studying ethics is to sharpen the skills of argumentation, and learning to use the most effective and appropriate methods in different contexts.  By breaking the ethical process into these steps, we can also see where the specific disagreements and conflicts originate.  This allows us to formulate better arguments.  

When in a secular context, it is preferred that arguments be formulated within a few basic forms.  The first three types represent the basic modes of thought.  The fourth mode is also useful, though not as common when making actual arguments for ethical positions.  

Virtue Theory: The oldest model of ethics is inherent in the moral mandates of the world's great religions.  The philosopher who first systematized and articulated this mode was Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics.   Virtue theory in various forms is fundamental to religious Ethics.  The problem with virtue theory is that it depends entirely on what can be described as arbitrary definitions of what is virtuous.  Since it begins with step two above, and omits step one, it is highly susceptible to counterarguments from...

Utilitarianism: Basically stated, it calls for the greatest good for the greatest number.  The end justifies the means.  Bentham believed that this happiness is subjective, so that there is no sense in claiming that certain pleasures like Shakespeare superior to "Fear Factor" or "Survivor".  John Stuart Mill disagreed, suggesting that the pains of a liberal education are necessary, and that we should be in libraries and museums instead of football stadiums.   Utilitarian reasoning is based on observation, calculation and perhaps even democratic process. 

Deontological or Kantian: This powerful ethical approach is based on three essential concepts: human dignity and autonomy, the categorical imperative, and duty: Treat others as an end in themselves, and not as a means to an end.  Behave in such a way that every thing you do could be made into a universal mandate.  (Dumping used motor oil down the toilet is absolutely wrong.  Telling lies is ALWAYS wrong.)  A law is a law, and we have a duty to follow that law.  The person who acts out of a sense of duty is superior to the one who acts with desire, passion or resentment.  

This Kantian emphasis on duty is generally not used when arguing from this perspective.  Instead, deontology is used to establish the absoluteness of a law.  The reasoning begins with a moral imperative like "Thou shalt not kill." and then moves by deductive reasoning to demonstrate that war and capital punishment are wrong.  In order to justify war and capital punishment, it is necessary to create a sort of hierarchical interplay of various priorities.  For example, if someone commits murder, then s/he has forfeited hir rights as a human by denying them to another, and therefore MUST be killed.  It would be wrong NOT to kill the murderer, as if the act of murder evokes capital punishment as a logical response.  Does that make sense?  I thought so.  

Ethical Egoism & Social Contract Theory: usually attributed to Thomas Hobbes, it emphasizes rational self-interest.  We enter into social agreements, sacrificing some liberty so that we can have a nicer world to live in.  Later versions were less pessimistic (like John Locke), and the most recent of them is the philosopher John Rawls.  It is not a very popular form of ethical argumentation, though it is often used to make broad statements about political science and government in general.   

Situational Ethics: Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest, founded a new movement of ethical thought that bases ethical decisions on the particular circumstances, and the overriding principle of love.  The concept is utilitarian in nature, but uses a Kantian principle of the Golden Rule to temper all decisions.  It should be noted that one of the major reasons behind this movement was the justification of euthanasia. An on-line reading: 1 

For a good, general introduction to this theme in the context of religion, I recommend this piece:
http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/0209ethics.html

Notice that the observational, evaluative, and democratic mode of Utilitarianism demonstrates its roots in inductive reasoning.  Like science, it reasons from observations to a general law, or from votes to a public law.  Gun laws are frequently argued in Utilitarian terms.  They analyze statistics, and put the laws on a public ballot.  They are also argued from a Deontological perspective using the Second Amendment as a deductive principle.  Guns allegedly guarantee our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In light of recent events and current technology, the debate over gun control has become (in my opinion) largely a moot issue that has more to do with broader political agendas than with actual concerns over gun laws.  It is expedient for politicians to accept one or another position in order to define themselves politically to attract certain voters. The abortion issue is similar.  We should be alert to these underlying factors and motives in ethical debates.  I would argue that Gun Control and Abortion laws represent a new type of dogma that delineates distinctions between groups of people, rather than genuine attempts to solve the problems that arise in relation to those issues.  We can see similar debates in religious history over the doctrine of the Trinity.  It may have a spiritual purpose, but it did in fact become a method for setting up political or ideological borders.  

A better example of Utilitarian ethics at work in our legal code is the various laws surrounding speed limits for automobiles.  Experts analyze statistics about fatalities, fuel consumption and insurance costs.  The results are given to legislative bodies, which then determine a public policy designed to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.  The Deontological premise of liberty (freedom to do as one wishes) is overridden by the observation that higher speeds result in more deaths, greater fuel consumption, higher pollution, and various costs to the public.  The decision to impose speed limits is accepted by the public at large, even if large portions of the population disregard them.  This is an excellent example of how an apparently personal choice has far-reaching effects that merit the implementation of a public policy that curtails liberty in order to maximize public "happiness."    

Whenever Utilitarian arguments serve as the playing field for ethical debate, there are always arguments over the reliability and interpretation of statistics.  The same can be said about public polling.  Scientific method applied to such complex sociological systems is difficult to verify, and it is a fairly simple matter to produce misleading statistics.  Disagreements over gun laws, for instance, generally consist of competing statistics and polls produced by various partisan sources.  As is typical of these debates, the root issue of why there is violent crime is avoided, and both parties believe that the problem will be solved or lessened by changing the laws that control guns.  The gun control debate masks (I feel) a deeper and implicit debate over the distribution of wealth and justice, not to mention education.   As ethical thinkers, we need to be alert to these misleading elements and hidden variables in ethical debates.  

Deontological ethics is based on deductive reasoning in that a certain law is defined by logical necessity or logical extension:  What would happen if lying were a universal law?  The world would suck.  Hence, lying is absolutely and always wrong, according to the Deontologist.  The admonition against lying then becomes an absolute principle against which specific cases must be tried: Should I lie about my opinion of your new haircut? The a priori law states that lying is always wrong, therefore I say: "Your haircut makes you look like Trent Lott."  Critics often suggest that in the case of lying, there are numerous examples where lying would produce a better end.  Kant responded by saying that the actual results of the lie might be worse than the truth, and we cannot know what the result would be, therefore we should always err on the side of truth. 

One might ask if there really are any true Deontologists out there.  In many cases, people with strong moral convictions use these kinds of arguments in order to argue against something that for metaphysical or spiritual reasons they consider wrong.  For instance, animal rights arguments often use the form of Deontology--we cannot use an animal as a means to an end, and causing suffering is always wrong.  Naturally, Kant would be uncomfortable with the application of his lofty morality to non-rational animals, but that does not mean the we can't apply this style of argument in such cases.   

Most religions carry mandates against killing, lying, intoxication and promiscuity.  These frequently appear as basic assumptions that are not in themselves supported.  For instance, drug laws are often argued in terms of the absolute wrongness of intoxication.  Critics often use statistics to show that legalization of drugs would cost less and result in less crime over the long haul.  Supporters of the drug laws generally fall back on the basic assumption that drugs (intoxication) are bad, even if the statistics and accounting make it appear that the laws are worse than the drugs.  There are strong and persuasive arguments on both sides of this debate, but you should notice that the opponents of the drug war rely on Utilitarian methods, while the supporters rely on Deontological arguments.  (Here are examples of conservative arguments against the drug war from the Cato Institute.) Sometimes you'll hear a statistics based argument for the drug war, but when you look at them closely, you'll generally find that they are engaging an appeal to emotion by pointing out the effects the drugs have on children, which is a deductive principle that is assumed to be valuable.  Critics of the drug laws may use Deontological arguments that refer to the rights granted by the Constitution, and that the drug laws infringe on personal freedom.  These arguments tend to be weak because drug use always has social ramifications.  It is not really a private issue.  

So the supporters of the drug war must explain how the economic costs and the violence produced by the laws are acceptable in light of the greater evil of legalization.  The opponents must explain how the surge in corporate profits (and taxes), increased safety for police, and the reduction in prison populations and military/police expenses would outweigh the social impact of legalization.  It is probably not possible for the religious-moralist to convince a libertarian or Utilitarian that drugs are so evil that we should eliminate them at all costs.  It is probably not possible for the Utilitarian to persuade the moralist that drugs aren't as sinister as they think.  The debate is doomed to go in circles, but we may be able to find a way to create a compromise.  That's the ultimate social goal of studying ethics: to learn to communicate and negotiate effectively with those whose ethical and metaphysical convictions are very different from yours.

In conclusion, this is the goal of inserting this lesson into a course on World Religions--to demonstrate clearly the difference between religious and non-religious moral rhetoric.  

Many types grow out of or extend the basic modes of the previous.  For a broad collection of links to various ethical theories, visit Lawrence M. Hinman's Ethics Update site.

Some other important approaches include:

Rights Theory

Existential

Moral Nihilism, Skepticism & Emotivism  

Most ethical arguments hinge upon either Utilitarian approaches, or Deontological approaches.  There are many variations possible, and it is possible to combine arguments.  Providing a variety of arguments that lead to similar conclusions adds a great deal of strength to an ethical argument.  The best procedure in writing is to present the dilemma, present the best arguments for two or more responses, and then evaluate them for strength. 

When in a non-secular (religious) context, it is preferred that ethical arguments be made according to what is known as Virtue-based ethics.  The basic idea is that some code of correct behavior exists, and we can measure our actions against that code.  In other words, follow the Dharma, the Tao, the Way, God's Law, etc.  The reason this is not a very effective argument in secular contexts is that with public/political ethical arguments not everyone shares those same sources of Virtue ethics.   For this reason, the Deontological position is generally used to achieve similar ends to the religious, Virtue argument.  The Virtue argument can generally be used only to "preach to the choir."  These arguments can be very divisive and alienating when presented to non-believers.  If you plan to use this method, it is always best to rely on ethical stances that are shared by many religions in order to more persuasively argue that the assumption is not culturally limited.  The position of many Evangelical Christians against gay marriage is a clear example.  Biblical quotations and admonitions to monogamy and sexual restraint have no effect on those who don't already share those beliefs. 

Even at the secular level not everyone accepts certain laws as absolute.  For instance, the abortion debate is a good example.  How do the two types of arguments appear in the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice debates?  One side begins with two controversial assumptions as deductive principles: Murder (the killing of a human) is wrong.  An unborn fetus is a human.  The other side rejects the definition of the fetus as a human, and therefore it is not imbued with moral or legal status.  The Pro-Life movement accuses their opponents of inhumanity, while the Pro-Choice movement accuses their opponents of fascism, or restriction of autonomy.  The debaters fail to communicate because the definition of human is not common between them.  For the Pro-Choice position, "human status" is a legal concept and cannot be shown by any biological means since they do not see any properties or behaviors in the fetus that are not also found in animals.  They see autonomy, or freedom of choice as the most important principle, outweighing any possible claims to priority made by those who use religious, metaphysical assumptions to validate their position.  Pro-Life arguments generally rely on metaphysical assumptions about the soul.  In order to provide empirical evidence to support their claims, they associate "human" traits like heartbeat, fingerprints, brainwaves, etc. with the valued and protected concept of a human who has legal rights.  The principle of murder being wrong is rather convoluted, since it is difficult to argue against it in the case of a being whose moral status is so questionable, and then argue for killing in the cases of capital punishment and war, where the victims clearly have moral status.    Consequently, a public policy cannot please both parties, and a compromise must be worked out, or the majority opinion rules.  The important lesson that the abortion debate teaches us is the mechanics of dialogue and compromise between two groups with very different ethical opinions.  

Imagine a Utilitarian argument against abortion.  Imagine a deontological argument for abortion.  The opposites of those are easy and obvious to formulate.  How would a "Pro-Choicer" create a deontological argument that would better persuade or at least communicate to the religious person what s/he feels? How can a "Pro-Lifer" create a utilitarian argument to better persuade their opponents?  

When you make complex ethical decisions, how do you go about that process?  

Take a look at the various Religions we are studying.  How do they answer ethical questions?  Look at the concept of war and killing in the Bhagavad Gita.  

ETHICS READINGS FOR ASIAN RELIGIONS 

How do Buddhists respond to life's ethical dilemmas?  The Dhammapada is an excellent picture of their thinking.   Especially interesting in comparison with Islam and Christianity.  

Confucius still exerts a profound influence on Chinese culture.  His Analects are fascinating for their pragmatism.  It's not especially short, so the best way to deal with it is to simply scroll through it quickly, and scan for portions where it looks like Confucius is giving advice.  I don't expect you to read all of it.  Get the flavor.  Once you start, it's quite interesting.  

Lao Tzu gave us the Tao Teh Ching, which presents a very unusual perspective, especially from a literary point of view.  It's quite short.  An easy reading in an hour or two.  This one is the most mystical of the three.  The language is poetic and very evocative.  If you'd like an interesting web-based experience with the actual Chinese characters and a very well-done hyperlink-based English translation, click this link. (have an English translation handy for best results).  It appears that in terms of variety of English translations, this text probably has more than any book on the Internet--perhaps even the Bible.  For a catalogue of the translations available, go here: Gene Thursby's list of Translations of the Tao Teh Ching.

For Samurai and martial arts ethics of Japan.  The Art of War by Sun Tzu The Art of Peace (the most Buddhist) by Morihei Ueshiba A Book of Five Rings (on strategy) by Miyamoto Musashi.  These are interesting for their implications for business ethics, and evaluating wars.  

Unit Three Resources (Buddhism, Chinese & Japanese Religion) 

MONOTHEISM

How does Islam deal with ethical questions?  For Christians, I recommend  A Simple Path to Islam: an informative personal home page dedicated to explaining Islam to those of us who know very little.  The author is a Texan woman who converted from Christianity to Islam.  The site contains a variety of resources.  Look at the Hadiths, which constitute a collection of commands given by Mohammed that regulate various human behaviors.  

How do Jews and Christians respond to ethical questions?  The Bible tends to be the only source of ethical principles, but there is a great deal of variation among its interpreters.  My suggestion is to take a look at the Mosaic books of Leviticus Numbers and Deuteronomy to get a look at traditional Jewish ethics, which tends to have more influence in Fundamentalist and Mennonite Christianity and especially in Jehovah's Witnesses.  I am particularly fond of the book of Ecclesiastes--which perhaps comes closes to capturing the essence of Buddhism--though in a more Theistic and oddly pessimistic tone.  Click here to view the Jewish version of the Old Testament.  

The New Testament presents a number of ethical recommendations.  In my opinion, the most influential texts have been the Epistles of St. Paul.   It is difficult to choose one or two that capture the essence of Christian ethics, but I suggest I Corinthians and Romans and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.  I recommend the Gospel of Thomas because I'm betting most of you have never read it, and it consists entirely of the supposed sayings of Jesus.  You will probably recognize many of them, though the translation will use different words.  The Gospel of Thomas is possibly the source for the other Gospels, in that it has been suggested that it is the missing text "Q".  If this is true, then the Gnostic content was censored from Christ's words.  There is a great deal of debate over this issue, and perhaps the best way to deal with it is to take a look at the text in comparison with the Gospel of Matthew.)  I also recommend St. Augustine's On Christian Doctrine, which is the earliest systematic description of Christian religious life.  Many of its instructions are still held to as a model of good Christian behavior.  

Units Four and Five (Monotheism Resources)