01 BOOK 1 ICBA Rev01 PDF

BOOK 1
INTEGRATED CHARACTER BUILDING A
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM
ENGINEERING FACULTY
UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA
2017
Book 1, Page 1 of 151
CHAPTER 1
CHARACTER
1.1 Character Definition
Character has become a much-discussed issue lately. To find out, there needs to be an
explanation about character and its relation to human life. Characters are always
associated with a person or individual, society or nation when they act or behave with a
specific purpose. Character becomes an important factor for students when they live in
their academic life, such as learning, studying, discussing with friends, or socializing
with others who may not study in the similar program.
The characters seem to be part of the students because in the academic life that they can
play as a student who have the high spirit of learning, honesty (not doing plagiarism),
tolerance to friends in their campus who have different backgrounds (the language
dialect, hometown, religion, etc.). So character becomes one of the main problems in
college.
Character education is a teaching activity that helps students to recognize universal
values so that they are able to think and act in accordance with the principles of goodness
adopted by their environment. On the other hand, character education should also cover
the student behavior, whether by cognition, affection, or behavior. Cognitive character
education teaches students to recognize the moral value and influence on education.
Affective character education means to teach students to recognize love, affection,
concern for friends, environment, and country. This attitude can be applied to certain
values, such as the value of affection, the value of environmental care, the value of
nationality, or the value of Pancasila. Behavioral character education teaches students to
be able to identify the right behavior in running a certain value.
Prepared for international program in Engineering Faculty, University of Indonesia. 2017.

Integrated Character Building A
Character formation is one of the key to the development of the nation (Takwin, 2012).
This is the opinion of some Indonesian figures. Bung Hatta (in Takwin, 2012)
emphasizes the importance of character development along with the building of a sense
of nationality and an increase in knowledge and skills. Ki Hadjar Dewantara asserted that
the goal of education is to free human beings. Free man is a man with strong character
(Dewantara in Takwin, 2012). Character formation is also an important issue in education
considering the purpose of education is the formation of character (Santoso in Takwin,
2012). Since the independence of Indonesia until now, the character becomes an
important and basic part in developing the personality of the Indonesian nation.
Higher education requires students who have strong characters. Character is a set of
values that manifest in a system of thrust that underlies thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors
that can be displayed firmly (Arief in Saifuddin & Karim, 2011). Character is also the
internalization of values that come from the environment then become part of one's
personality. Character is formed through education, experience, experimentation,
sacrifice, and environmental influences. Therefore, the character must be formed, built,
and grown.
In psychology, the formation of character is noticed as the thing that shapes a person. The
discussion on this issue becomes part of a positive psychology approach that sees humans
as creatures with the power that can be developed to deal with the problems around them
(Selligman in Peterson & Selligman, 2004).
In the Nations Character Development policy, character is defined as distinctive values
that are internalized within and displayed in behavior. Character is a characteristic of a
person or group of people who have values, abilities, moral capacity, and firmness in the
face of challenges (Indonesian Government, 2010). The Educational Ministry
(Kemendiknas RI, 2011) has identified 18 values of character that needed to be

embedded to learners based on religion, Pancasila, culture, and national education
objective. The eighteen values are (1) religious, (2) honest, (3) tolerant, (4) discipline, (5)
hard work, (6) creative, (7) independent, (8) democratic, (9) curious, (10) nationalist, (11)
love of the homeland, (12) respect for achievement, (13) friendly / communicative, (14)
love peace, (15) reading, (16) social care, and (18) responsibility
1.2. Character Strength
Peterson and Seligman (2004) put forward several criteria of character.
1. A strength contributes to various fulfillments that constitute the good life, for the self
and for others.
2. Although strengths can and do produce desirable outcomes, each strength is morally
valued in its own right, even in the absence of obvious beneficial outcomes.
3. A strength needs to be manifest in the range of an individual's behavior—thoughts,
feelings, and/or actions—in such a way that it can be assessed.
4. Strong characters can be distinguished from traits contrary to them. fifth
5. The character strength is accommodated by the ideal model or frame of mind.
6. The character strength can be distinguished from other positive strength and closely
intertwined.
7. In certain contexts, the character strength becomes admirable characteristic for those
who perceive it.
8. Perhaps, not all character strengths appear in a person, but most of the character
strengths appear in one person.
9. The character strength has psychosocial roots; its potential is within oneself and its
actualization is influenced by the social environment.

1.3. Establishing Character Strength and Virtue.
In the effort to form a character, it is necessary to understand what strength and virtue of
character that has been developed by humans. The experts on characters research are
Peterson and Seligman (2004). Both experts were trying to create a list of personal
character strengths. The list is still being completed and added. Like other scientific
theories, theories of character strength are subjects ready to be changed in accordance
with the evidence found from time to time. The Character Strength and Virtue identifies
six classes of virtue (i.e., “core virtues”), made up of twenty-four measurable character
strengths.”
1.3.1. Wisdom and Knowledge: Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and
skillful use of knowledge.
1. Creativity & Imagination [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and
productive ways to conceptualize and do things.
2. Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest
in ongoing experience for its own sake; exploring and discovering.
3. Open-mindedness [holistic judgment, critical thinking]: Thinking things
through and examining them from all sides; weighing all evidence fairly.
4. Love of learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge,
whether on one’s own or formally.
5. Holistic perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others;
having ways of looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other
people.
1.3.2. Strengths of Courage: Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to
accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external and internal.

6. Bravery [valor]: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; acting
on convictions even if unpopular.
7. Persistence [perseverance, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts;
persisting in a course of action in spite of obstacles.
8. Integrity [authenticity, honesty]: Presenting oneself in a genuine way; taking
responsibility for one’s feeling and actions.
9. Vitality [zest, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: Approaching life with optimism and
energy; feeling alive and motivated.
1.3.3. Humanity: interpersonal strengths that involve supporting and befriending others.
10. Love & Compassion: Valuing close relations with others, in particular those
in which sharing and caring are reciprocated.
11. Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love,
“niceness”]: Doing favors and good deeds for others.
12. Social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being
aware of the motives and feelings of other people and oneself.
1.3.4. Justice: strengths that underlie healthy and harmonious community life.
13. Citizenship [social responsibility, loyalty, teamwork]: Working well as a
member of a group or team; being loyal to the group.
14. Fairness: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and
justice; not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others.
15. Leadership: Encouraging a group of which one is a member to get things done
and at the same maintain time good relations within the group.
1.3.5. Temperance: strengths that protect against unhealthy excess and egotism.
16. Forgiveness and mercy: Forgiving those who have done wrong; accepting the
shortcomings of others; giving people a second chance; not being vengeful.

17. Humility / Modesty: Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves; not
regarding one as more special than one is.
18. Prudence: Being careful about one’s choices; not taking undue risks; not
saying or doing things that might later be regretted.
19. Self-regulation [self-control]: Regulating what one feels and does; being
disciplined; controlling one’s appetites and emotions (equanimity).
1.3.6. Transcendence: strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide
meaning in life.
20. Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]:
Appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in various
domains of life.
21. Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful of the good things that happen;
taking time to express thanks.
22. Hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: Expecting the best in
the future and working to achieve it.
23. Humor [playfulness]: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other
people; seeing the light side.
24. Spirituality [religiousness, faith, purpose]: Having coherent beliefs about the
higher purpose, the meaning of life, and the meaning of the universe.

Table: Character Strength and Virtue
No. Strength Virtue
Creativity & imagination, curiosity, open-
1. Wisdom and Knowledge mindedness, love of learning, and holistic
perspective.
2. Strengths of Courage Bravery, persistence, integrity, and vitality
Love & compassion, kindness, and social

3. Humanity
intelligence
4. Justice Citizenship, fairness, and leadership
Forgiveness and mercy, humility / Modesty,

5. Temperance
prudence, and self-regulation
Appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude,

6. Transcendence
hope, humor, and spirituality
1.4 Understanding the basic Value of the University of Indonesia
In this sub-chapter will be described about the notion of values associated with human
character and the basic value of University of Indonesia based on the Regulation of
Majelis Wali Amanat Universitas Indonesia No.004/Peraturan/MWAUI/2015.
Regulation of Majelis Wali Amanat of the University of Indonesia No.004 / Peraturan /
MWAUI / 2015 on Household Rules of University of Indonesia article 2 on Values of the
University of Indonesia:
1. Honesty.
2. Justice.
3. Trust.
4. Dignity and/or Respect.

5. Responsibility and Accountability.
6. Togetherness.
7. Transparency.
8. Academic Freedom and Scientific Autonomy.
9. Compliance with UI Rules, Procedures and Guides and other Guides.
These values refer to the Decision of the Council of Professors of University of Indonesia
No. 001 / SK / DGB-UI / 2014 on the Code of Conduct of the academic community of
University of Indonesia. The content is as follows:
1. Honesty
Straight, sincere, say and act right, do not lie, do not cheat, no corruption, no cheating,
which in its implementation coexist with a sincere attitude, wise and sublime mind.
Honesty covers the entire attitude of action, including no plagiarism in academic
activities, or scientific development, nor abusing positions, rank, title, or other academic
facilities.
2. Just and Fair
Provide equal opportunity and treatment and nondiscrimination to every citizen in
performing their respective duties, including in developing academic activities and other
activities. This attitude is not based on racial, ethnic, religious, gender, marital, age,
disability, and sexual orientation considerations.
3. Trust
Have a trustworthy behavior in carrying out the mandate or in carrying out every activity
or obligation, either in structural, functional, or as citizen in general.
4. Dignity and/or Respect.
Have commitment to treat everyone with respect, humanity, decency, obedience, or
propriety in any situation.

5. Responsibility and Accountability.
Have responsibility in carrying out his duties in structural and functional by avoiding
conflict of interest that can suffer University of Indonesia and its community. This
includes the avoidance of conflicts of interest such as the act of refusing a bribe or others
similar situation which may affect the decision-making and may suffer University of
Indonesia and its community.
6. Togetherness
Diversity/plurality is a characteristic of the Indonesian nation that become the strength
and wealth of the University of Indonesia. The recognition of cultural diversity is the
basis of a sense of togetherness and become part of UI community identity as part of the
Indonesian nation. Therefore, UI citizens are determined to uphold the tolerance and
spirit of togetherness in pursuing and carrying out the duties and responsibilities imposed
on every UI citizen in his workplace.
7. Transparency
Transparency of conscience and attitude to listen and consider the opinions of others, the
academic transparency to critically accepts all information and all other party's academic
findings. And willing to open/share all knowledge information owned to the party who
has the right to know/interest, except the confidential.
8. Academic Freedom and Scientific Autonomy
Upholding academic freedom, the obligation to maintain and advance science, the
freedom to convey thoughts and opinions within the UI as well as in other academic
forums.
9. Compliance to Laws
Implementing all activities within the UI must comply with all applicable Nine Basic
Values of the University of Indonesia complement the understanding of values in Chapter

I and add insight to the students of University of Indonesia. The nine values are expected
to form the character of the academic community of university of Indonesia which is
reflected through its behavior in everyday life, especially in academic life. Therefore, the
values are always expected to influence every activity and decision taken by the
academic community, both lecturers and students. In addition, these nine values will be
merged in subjects studied by students and other non-academic activities outside the
class.

CHAPTER 2
PHILOSOPHY
1. What is Philosophy?
The etymology of philosophy is simpler. The oldest known roots of this word lie in the
Greek and Latin words philo (beloved) and sophia (knowledge): philosophia
(philosophy)… or literally love of knowledge.
The Greeks were extremely influential, with most modern philosophers claiming that
many Western values were shaped by Greek philosophers.
Socrates was one of the greatest philosophers of all times, though he never recorded his
philosophy in writing. (All that we know of him comes down to us from his student
Plato and other philosophers.) Socrates was born in 470 BCE and lived his whole long
life in Athens. He had a spectacular gift for rhetoric and debating. He had a much-
gossiped-about marriage, had several children, and lived in poverty most of his
life. He based his philosophy on the need to “know yourself” and on living the
“examined life,” even though the height of wisdom, according to Socrates, was to know
how thoroughly ignorant we are. Much of his work was dedicated to defining and
living the ideals of wisdom, justice, and the good life. In 399 BCE he was placed on trial
by the Athenians for “corrupting the youth” with his ideas. He was condemned to
death, refused all opportunities to escape or have his sentence repealed, and
accepted the cruel and unfair verdict with complete dignity and several brilliant
speeches, dying as well as living for the ideas he defended.
Socrates believed that philosophy - the love of wisdom - was the most important pursuit
above all else. For some, he exemplifies, more than anyone else in history, the pursuit of
wisdom through questioning and logical argument, by examining and by thinking. His

'examination' of life in this way spilled out into the lives of others, such that they began
their own 'examination' of life, but he knew they would all die one day, as saying that a
life without philosophy - an 'unexamined' life - was not worth living.
Philosophy is the systematic and critical study of fundamental questions that arise both in
everyday life and through the practice of other disciplines. Some of these questions
concern the nature of reality: Is there an external world? What is the relationship between
the physical and the mental? Does God exist? Others concern our nature as rational,
purposive, and social beings: Do we act freely? Where do our moral obligations come
from? How do we construct just political states? others concern the nature and extent of
our knowledge: What is it to know something rather than merely believe it? Does all of
our knowledge come from sensory experience? Are there limits to our knowledge? And
still others concern the foundations and implications of other disciplines: What is a
scientific explanation? What sort of knowledge of the world does science provide? Do
scientific theories, such as evolutionary theory, or quantum mechanics, compel us to
modify our basic philosophical understanding of, and approach to, reality? What makes
an object a work of art? Are aesthetic value judgments objective? And so on.
The aim in Philosophy is not to master a body of facts, so much as think clearly and
sharply through any set of facts. Towards that end, philosophy students are trained to
read critically, analyze and assess arguments, discern hidden assumptions, construct
logically tight arguments, and express themselves clearly and precisely in both speech
and writing. Here are descriptions of some of the main areas of philosophy:
1.1. Epistemology
Epistemology studies questions about knowledge and rational belief. Traditional
questions include the following: How can we know that the ordinary physical objects
around us are real (as opposed to dreamed, or hallucinated, as in the Matrix)? What are

the factors that determine whether a belief is rational or irrational? What is the difference
between knowing something and just believing it? (Part of the answer is that you can
have false beliefs, but you can only know things that are true. But that’s not the whole
answer— after all, you might believe something true on the basis of a lucky guess, and
that wouldn’t be knowledge!)
Some other questions that have recently been the subject of lively debate in epistemology
include: Can two people with exactly the same evidence be Can two people with exactly
the same evidence be completely rational in holding opposite beliefs? Does whether I
know something depend on how much practical risk I would face if I believed falsely?
Can I rationally maintain confident beliefs about matters on which I know that others,
who are seemingly every bit as intelligent, well-informed, unbiased and diligent as I am,
have come to opposite conclusions?
1.2. Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of what the world is like —or (some would say) what reality
consists in. Metaphysical questions can take several forms. They can be questions about
what exists (questions of ontology); they can be questions what is fundamental (as
opposed to derivative); and they can be questions about what is an objective feature of
the world (as opposed to a mere consequence the way in which creatures like us happen
to interact with that world).
Questions that are central to the study of metaphysics include questions about the nature
of objects, persons, time, space, causation, laws of nature, and modality. The rigorous
study of these questions has often led metaphysicians to make surprising claims. Plato
thought that alongside the observable, concrete world there was a realm of eternal,
unchanging abstract entities like Goodness, Beauty, and Justice. Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz claimed that the world was composed of tiny indivisible souls, called monads.

Even today of tiny indivisible souls, called monads. Even today contemporary
metaphysicians have been known to doubt the existence of ordinary objects, to deny the
possibility of free will, and to argue that our world is just one of a plurality of worlds.
1.3. Logic
Logic is the study of the validity of patterns of inference. Logic is not a branch of
psychology: It does not concern how people actually reason or which kinds of reasoning
they find intuitively compelling. Rather, logic concerns the question of when a claim is
conclusively supported by other claims. For instance, the inference from the claims “it is
raining” and “if it is raining then the streets are wet” to the claim “the streets are wet” is
logically valid – the premises conclusively support the conclusion. The validity of this
specific inference, and of other inferences of the same form, is tied to the nature of the
concept “if … then”. More generally, the notion of logical validity is closely connected to
the nature of concepts such as “and”, “or”, “not”, “if … then”, “all”, and “some”. In
studying the notion of logical validity, logicians have developed symbolic languages.
These enable us to state claims clearly and precisely, and to investigate the exact
structure of an argument. These languages have turned out to be useful within philosophy
and other disciplines, including mathematics and computer science. Some of the
questions about logic studied by members of the philosophy department include: Given
that logic is not an empirical science, how can we have knowledge of basic logical
truths? What is the connection between logic and rationality? Can mathematics be
reduced to logic? Should we revise logic to accommodate vague or imprecise language?
Should we revise logic to answer the liar paradox and other paradoxes concerning truth?
1.4. Political Philosophy
Political philosophy is the philosophical study of concepts and values associated with
political matters. For one example, is there any moral obligation to do what the law says

just because the law says so and if so on what grounds? Many have said we consent to
obey. Did you consent to obey the laws? Can one consent without realizing it? Are there
other grounds for an obligation to obey the law? Another central question is what would
count as a just distribution of all the wealth and opportunity that is made possible by
living in a political community? Is inequality in wealth or income unjust? Much existing
economic inequality is a result of different talents, different childhood opportunities,
different gender, or just different geographical location. What might justify inequalities
that are owed simply by bad luck? Some say that inequality can provide incentives to
produce or innovate more, which might benefit everyone. Others innovate more, which
might benefit everyone. Others say that many goods belong to individuals before the law
enters in, and that people may exchange them as they please even if this results in some
having more than others. So (a third question), what does it mean for something to be
yours, and what makes it yours?
1.5. Philosophy of Language
The Philosophy of Language is devoted to the study of questions concerned with
meaning and communication. Such questions range from ones that interact closely with
linguistic theory to questions that are more akin to those raised in the study of literature.
Very large questions include: What is linguistic meaning? How is the meaning of
linguistic performances similar to and different from the meanings of, say, gestures or
signals? What is the relationship between language and thought? Is thought more
fundamental than language? Or is there some sense in which only creatures that can
speak can think? To what extent does the social environment affect the meaning and use
of language? Other questions focus on the communicative aspect of language, such as:
What is it to understand what someone else has said? What is it to assert something?
How is assertion related to knowledge and belief? And how is it that we can gain

knowledge from others through language? Yet other questions focus on specific features
of the langauges we speak, for example: What is it a name to be a we speak, for example:
What is it a name to be a name of a particular thing? What's the relationship between the
meanings of words and the meanings of sentences? Is there an important difference
between literal and figurative uses of language? What is metaphor? And how does it
work?
1.6. Moral Philosophy
Ethics is the study of what we ought to do and what sorts of people we ought to be.
Ethicists theorize about what makes acts right and wrong and what makes outcomes good
and bad, and also about which motivations and traits of character we should admire and
cultivate. Some other questions that ethicists try to answer are closely related to the
central ones. They include: What does it mean to act freely? Under what conditions are
we responsible for our good and bad acts? Are moral claims true and false, like ordinary
descriptive claims about our world, and if they are what makes them so?
1.7. History of Philosophy
The History of Philosophy plays a special role in the study of philosophy. Like every
other intellectual discipline, philosophy has of course a history. However, in the case of
philosophy an understanding of its history - from its ancient and medieval beginnings
through the early modern period (the 17th and 18th centuries) and into more recent times
- forms a vital part of the very enterprise of philosophy, whether in metaphysics and
epistemology or in ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy. To study the great
philosophical works of the past is to learn about the origins and presuppositions of many
of the problems that occupy philosophy today. It is also to discover and to come to
appreciate different ways of dealing with these problems, different conceptions of what
the fundamental problems of philosophy are, and indeed different ways of doing

philosophy altogether. And it is also the study of works—from Plato and Aristotle,
through Kant and Mill and more recent writers—that have shaped much of Western
culture far beyond academic philosophy. Many of the most creative philosophers
working today have also written on various topics in the history of philosophy and have
found their inspiration in great figures of the past.
1.8. Why Study Philosophy?
This question may be understood in two ways: Why would one engage in the particular
intellectual activities that constitute philosophical inquiry? And how might the study of
philosophy affect my future career prospects?
 Philosophy as intellectual activity may have a number of motivations:
 Intellectual curiosity: philosophy is essentially a reflective-critical inquiry motivated
by a sense of intellectual “wonder.” What is the world like? Why is it this way, rather
than another? Who am I? Why am I here?
 Interest in cultural and intellectual history: as a discipline, philosophy pays a great
deal of attention to its history, and to the broader cultural and intellectual context in
which this history unfolds.
 Sharpening thinking skills: the study of philosophy is especially well suited to the
development of a variety of intellectual skills involved in the analysis of concepts, the
critique of ideas, the conduct of sound reasoning and argumentation; it is important to
emphasize that philosophical inquiry also fosters intellectual creativity (developing
new concepts, or new approaches to problems, identifying new problems, and so on).
 Sharpening writing skills: the writing of philosophy is especially rigorous insofar as it
demands a high level of clarity, precision, and organization.
 Philosophy might affect future career prospects in a number of ways:

 Some philosophy concentrators go on to graduate school to earn a PhD in philosophy.
Most of those become professors of philosophy, which means that their professional
lives are devoted to research and teaching in philosophy.
A philosophy concentration is not limiting: in fact, the skills it develops and sharpens are
transferable to a wide variety of professional activities. Obvious examples include the
application of reasoning and argumentation skills to the practice of law; less obvious
examples include the application of analytical and critical skills to journalism, investment
banking, writing, publishing, and so on; even less obvious examples include putting
one’s philosophical education to work in business entrepeneurship, political and social
activism, and even creative arts. political and social activism, and even creative arts.
1.9. The importance of Philosophy in human life
PHILOSOPHY is a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and reality.
It tries to discover the nature of truth and knowledge and to find what is of basic value
and importance in life. It also examines the relationships between humanity and nature
and between the individual and society. Philosophy arises out of wonder, curiosity, and
the desire to know and understand. Philosophy is thus a form of inquiry-- a process of
analysis, criticism, interpretation, and speculation.
The term philosophy cannot be defined precisely because the subject is so complex and
so controversial. Different philosophers have different views of the nature, methods, and
range of philosophy. The term philosophy itself comes from the Greek philosophia,

which means love of wisdom. In that sense, wisdom is the active use of intelligence, not
something passive that a person simply possesses.
The first known Western philosophers lived in the ancient Greek world during the early
500's B.C. These early philosophers tried to discover the basic makeup of things and the
nature of the world and of reality. For answers to questions about such subjects, people
had largely relied on magic, superstition, religion, tradition, or authority. But the Greek
philosophers considered or authority. But the Greek philosophers considered those
sources of knowledge unreliable. Instead, they sought answers by thinking and by
studying nature.
Philosophy has also had a long history in some non- Western cultures, especially in
China and India. But until about 200 years ago, there was little interchange between those
philosophies and Western philosophy, chiefly because of difficulties of travel and
communication. As a result, Western philosophy generally developed independently of
Eastern philosophy.
1.10. The Importance of Philosophy
Philosophic thought is an inescapable part of human existence. Almost everyone has
been puzzled from time to time by such essentially philosophic questions as "What does
life mean?" "Did I have any existence before I was born?" and "Is there life after death?"
Most people also have some kind of philosophy in the sense of a personal outlook on life.
Even a person who claims that considering philosophic questions is a waste of time is
expressing what is important, worthwhile, or valuable. A rejection of all philosophy is in
itself philosophy.
By studying philosophy, people can clarify what they believe, and they can be stimulated
to think about ultimate questions. A person can study philosophers of the past to discover
why they thought as they did and what value their thoughts may have in one's own life.

There are people who simply enjoy reading the great philosophers, especially those who
were also great writers.
Philosophy has had enormous influence on our everyday lives. The very language we
speak uses classifications derived from philosophy. For example, the classifications of
noun and verb involve the philosophic idea that there is a difference between things and
actions. If we ask what the difference is, we are starting a philosophic inquiry.
Every institution of society is based on philosophic ideas, whether that institution is the
law, government, religion, the family, marriage, industry, business, or education.
Philosophic differences have led to the overthrow of governments, drastic changes in
laws, and the transformation of entire economic systems. Such changes have occurred
because the people involved held certain beliefs about what is important, true, real, and
significant and about how life should be ordered.
Systems of education follow a society's philosophic ideas about what children should be
taught and for what purposes. Democratic societies stress that people learn to think and
make choices for that people learn to think and make choices for themselves.
Nondemocratic societies discourage such activities and want their citizens to surrender
their own interests to those of the state. The values and skills taught by the educational
system of a society thus reflect the society's philosophic ideas of what is important.
2. The Branches of Philosophy
Philosophic inquiry can be made into any subject because philosophy deals with
everything in the world and all of knowledge. But traditionally, and for purposes of
study, philosophy is divided into five branches, each organized around certain distinctive
questions. The branches are (1) metaphysics, (2) epistemology, (3) logic, (4) ethics, and
(5) aesthetics. In addition, the philosophy of language has become so important during
the 1900's that it is often considered another branch of philosophy.

2.1. Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality and existence and of the
essences of things. Metaphysics is itself often divided into two areas--ontology and
cosmology. Ontology is the study of being. Cosmology is the study of the physical
universe, or the cosmos, taken as a whole. Cosmology is also the name of the branch of
science that studies the organization, history, and future of the universe.
Metaphysics deals with such questions as "What is real?" "What is the distinction
between appearance and reality?" "What are the most general principles and concepts by
which our experiences can be interpreted and understood?" and "Do we possess free will
or are our actions determined by causes over which we have no control?"
Philosophers have developed a number of theories in metaphysics. These theories include
materialism, idealism, mechanism, and teleology. Materialism maintains that only matter
has real existence and that feeling, thoughts, and other mental phenomena are produced
by the activity of matter. Idealism states that every material thing is an idea or a form of
an idea. In idealism, mental phenomena are what are fundamentally important and real.
Mechanism maintains that all happenings result from purely mechanical forces, not from
purpose, and that it makes no sense to speak of the universe itself as having a purpose.
Teleology, on the other hand, states that the universe and everything in it exists and
occurs for some purpose.
2.2. Epistemology
Epistemology aims to determine the nature, basis, and extent of knowledge. It explores
the various ways of knowing, the nature of truth, and the relationships between
knowledge and belief. Epistemology asks between knowledge and belief. Epistemology
asks such questions as "What are the features of genuine knowledge as distinct from what
appears to be knowledge?" "What is truth, and how can we know what is true and what is

false?" and "Are there different kinds of knowledge, with different grounds and
characteristics?"
Philosophers often distinguish between two kinds of knowledge, a priori and empirical.
We arrive at a priori knowledge by thinking, without independent appeal to experience.
For example, we know that there are 60 seconds in a minute by learning the meanings of
the terms. In the same way, we know that there are 60 minutes in an hour. From these
facts, we can deduce that there are 3,600 seconds in an hour, and we arrive at this
conclusion by the operation of thought alone. We acquire empirical knowledge from
observation and experience. For example, we know from observation how many keys are
on a typewriter and from experience which key will print what letter.
The nature of truth has baffled people since ancient times, partly because people so often
use the term true for ideas they find congenial and want to believe, and also because
people so often disagree about which ideas are true. Philosophers have attempted to
define criteria for distinguishing between truth and error. But they disagree about what
truth means and how to arrive at true ideas.
The correspondence theory holds that an idea is true if it corresponds to the facts or
reality. The pragmatic theory maintains that an idea is true if it works or settles the
problem it deals with. The coherence theory states that truth is a matter of degree and that
an idea is true to the extent to which it coheres (fits together) with other ideas that one
holds. Skepticism claims that knowledge is impossible to attain and that truth is
unknowable.
2.3. Logic
Logic is the study of the principles and methods of reasoning. It explores how we
distinguish between good (or sound) reasoning and bad (or unsound) reasoning. An
instance of reasoning is called an argument or an inference. An argument consists of a set

of statements called premises together with a statement called the conclusion, which is
supposed to be supported by or derived from the premises. A good argument provides
support for its conclusion, and a bad argument does not. Two basic types of reasoning are
called deductive and inductive.
A good deductive argument is said to be valid--that is, the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premises. A deductive argument whose conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises is said to be invalid. The argument "All human beings are mortal, all
Greeks are human beings, therefore all Greeks are mortal" is a valid deductive argument.
But the argument "All human beings are mortal, all Greeks argument "All human beings
are mortal, all Greeks are mortal, therefore all Greeks are human beings" is invalid, even
though the conclusion is true. On that line of reasoning, one could argue that all dogs,
which are also mortal, are human beings.
Deductive reasoning is used to explore the necessary consequences of certain
assumptions. Inductive reasoning is used to establish matters of fact and the laws of
nature and does not aim at being deductively valid. One who reasons that all squirrels
like nuts, on the basis that all squirrels so far observed like nuts, is reasoning inductively.
The conclusion could be false, even though the premise is true. Nevertheless, the premise
provides considerable support for the conclusion.
2.4. Ethics
Ethics concerns human conduct, character, and values. It studies the nature of right and
wrong and the distinction between good and evil. Ethics explores the nature of justice
and of a just society, and also one's obligations to oneself, to others, and to society.
Ethics asks such questions as "What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?"
"What is good and what is bad?" and "What are the proper values of life?" Problems arise
in ethics because we often have difficulty knowing exactly what the right thing to do is.

In many cases, our obligations conflict or are vague. In addition, people often disagree
about whether a particular action or principle is morally right or wrong.
A view called relativism maintains that what is right or wrong depends on the particular
culture concerned. What is right in one society may be wrong in another, this view
argues, and so no basic standards exist by which a culture may be judged right or wrong.
Objectivism claims that there are objective standards of right and wrong which can be
discovered and which apply to everyone. Subjectivism states that all moral standards are
subjective matters of taste or opinion.
2.5. Aesthetics
Aesthetics deals with the creation and principles of art and beauty. It also studies our
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes when we see, hear, or read something beautiful.
Something beautiful may be a work of art, such as a painting, symphony, or poem, or it
may be a sunset or other natural phenomenon. In addition, aesthetics investigates the
experience of engaging in such activities as painting, dancing, acting, and playing.
Aesthetics is sometimes identified with the philosophy of art, which deals with the nature
of art, the process of artistic creation, the nature of the aesthetic experience, and the
principles of criticism. But aesthetics has wider application. It involves both works of art
created by human beings and the beauty found in nature.
Aesthetics relates to ethics and political philosophy when we ask questions about what
role art and beauty should play in society and in the life of the individual. Such questions
include "How can people's taste in the arts be improved?" "How should the arts be taught
in the schools?" and "Do governments have the right to restrict artistic expression?"
3. Philosophy and Other Fields
One peculiarity of philosophy is that the question "What is philosophy?" is itself a
question of philosophy. But the question "What is art?" is not a question of art. The

question is philosophic. The same is true of such questions as "What is history?" and
"What is law?" Each is a question of philosophy. Such questions are basic to the
philosophy of education, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of law, and other
"philosophy of" fields. Each of these fields attempts to determine the foundations,
fundamental categories, and methods of a particular institution or area of study. A strong
relationship therefore exists between philosophy and other fields of human activity. This
relationship can be seen by examining two fields: (1) philosophy and science and (2)
philosophy and religion.
4. Philosophy and Science
Science studies natural phenomena and the phenomena of society. It does not study itself.
When science does reflect on itself, it becomes the philosophy of science and examines a
number of philosophic questions. These questions include "What is science?" "What is
scientific method?" "Does scientific truth provide us with the truth about the universe and
reality?" and "What is the value of science?"
Philosophy has given birth to several major fields of scientific study. Until the 1700's, no
distinction was made between science and philosophy. For example, physics was called
natural philosophy. Psychology was part of what was called moral philosophy. In the
early 1800's, sociology and linguistics separated from philosophy and became distinct
areas of study. Logic has always been considered a branch of philosophy. However, logic
has now developed to the point where it is also a branch of mathematics, which is a basic
science.
Philosophy and science differ in many respects. For example, science has attained
definite and tested knowledge of many matters and has thus resolved disagreement about
those matters. Philosophy has not. As a result, controversy has always been characteristic
of philosophy. Science and philosophy do share one significant goal. Both seek to

discover the truth--to answer questions, solve problems, and satisfy curiosity. In the
process, both science and philosophy provoke further questions and problems, with each
solution bringing more questions and problems.
5. Philosophy and Religion
Historically, philosophy originated in religious questions. These questions concerned the
nature and purpose of life and death and the relationship of humanity to superhuman
powers or a divine creator. Every society has some form of religion. Most people acquire
their religion from their society as they acquire their language. Philosophy inquires into
the essence of things, and inquiry into the essence of religion is a philosophic inquiry.
Religious ideas generated some of the earliest philosophic speculations about the nature
of life and the universe. The speculations often centered on the idea of a supernatural or
super powerful being who created the universe and who governs it according to
unchangeable laws and gives it purpose. Western philosophic tradition has paid much
attention to the possibility of demonstrating the existence of God.
The chief goal of some philosophers is not understanding and knowledge. Instead, they
try to help people endure the pain, anxiety, and suffering of earthly existence. Such
philosophers attempt to make philosophic reflection on the nature and purpose of life
performs the function of religion.
6. Oriental Philosophy
There are two main traditions in Oriental philosophy, Chinese and Indian. Both
philosophies are basically religious and ethical in origin and character. They are removed
from any interest in science.
Traditionally, Chinese philosophy has been largely practical, humanistic, and social in its
aims. It developed as a means of bringing about improvements in society and politics.
Traditionally, philosophy in India has been chiefly mystical rather than political. It has

been dominated by reliance on certain sacred texts, called Vedas, which are considered
inspired and true and therefore subject only for commentary and not for criticism. Much
of Indian philosophy has emphasized withdrawal from everyday life into the life of the
spirit. Chinese philosophy typically called for efforts to participate in the life of the state
in order to improve worldly conditions.
Chinese philosophy as we know it started in the 500's B.C. with the philosopher
Confucius. His philosophy, called Confucianism, was the official philosophy of China
for centuries, though it was reinterpreted by different generations. Confucianism aimed to
help people live better and more rewarding lives by discipline and by instruction in the
proper goals of life. Candidates for government positions had to pass examinations on
Confucian thought, and Confucianism formed the basis for government decisions. No
other civilization has placed such emphasis on philosophy.
Other philosophic traditions in China were Taoism, Mohism, and realism. Beginning in
the 1100's, a movement known as Neo-Confucianism incorporated elements of all these
doctrines.
We do not know exactly when Indian philosophy began. In India, philosophic thought
was intermingled with religion, and most Indian philosophic thought has been religious
in character and aim. Philosophic commentaries on sacred texts emerge during the 500's
B.C. The Indian word for these studies is darshana, which means vision or seeing. It
corresponds to what the ancient Greeks called philosophia.
In India, as in China, people conceived of philosophy as a way of life, not as a mere
intellectual activity. The main aim of Indian philosophy was freedom from the suffering
and tension caused by the body and the senses and by attachment to worldly things. The
main philosophies developed in India were Hinduism and Buddhism, which were also
religions. Yet some Indian philosophers did develop a complex system of logic and

carried on investigations in epistemology. Some Indian philosophic ideas have been
influential in the West. One such idea is reincarnation, the belief that the human soul is
successively reborn in new bodies.
7. The History of Western Philosophy
The history of Western philosophy is commonly divided into three periods--ancient,
medieval, and modern. The period of ancient philosophy extended from about 600 B.C.
to about the A.D. 400's. Medieval philosophy lasted from the 400's to the 1600's. Modern
philosophy covers the period from the 1600's to the present.
Ancient Philosophy was almost entirely Greek. The greatest philosophers of the ancient
world were three Greeks of the 400's and 300's B.C.--Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Their
philosophy influenced all later Western culture. Our ideas in the fields of metaphysics,
science, logic, and ethics originated from their thought. A number of distinctive schools
of philosophy also flourished in ancient Greece.
The Pre-Socratics were the first Greek philosophers. Their name comes from the fact that
most of them lived before the birth of Socrates, which was about 469 B.C. The pre-
Socratic philosophers were mainly interested in the nature and source of the universe and
the nature of reality. They wanted to identify the fundamental substance that they thought
underlay all phenomena, and in terms of which all phenomena could be explained.
Unlike most other people of their time, the pre-Socratic philosophers did not believe that
gods or supernatural forces caused natural events. Instead, they sought a natural
explanation for natural phenomena. The philosophers saw the universe as a set of
connected and unified phenomena for which thought could find an explanation. They
gave many different and conflicting answers to basic philosophic questions. However,
the importance of the pre-Socratics lies not in the truth of their answers but in the fact

that they examined the questions in the first place. They had no philosophic tradition to
work from, but their ideas provided a tradition for all later philosophers.
Socrates left no writings, though he was constantly engaged in philosophic discussion.
Our knowledge of his ideas and methods comes mainly from dialogues written by his
pupil Plato. In most of the dialogues, Socrates appears as the main character that leads
and develops the process of inquiry.
Socrates lived in Athens and taught on the streets, market place, and gymnasiums. He
taught by a question-and-answer method. Socrates tried to get a definition or precise view
of some abstract idea, such as knowledge, virtue, justice, or wisdom. He would use close,
sharp questioning, constantly asking "What do you mean?" and "How do you know?"
This procedure, you mean?" and "How do you know?" This procedure, called the
Socratic Method, became the model for philosophic methods that emphasize debate and
discussion.
Socrates wanted to replace vague opinions with clear ideas. He often questioned
important Athenians and exposed their empty claims to knowledge and wisdom. This
practice made him many enemies, and he was put to death as a danger to the state. He
thus became a symbol of the philosopher who pursued an argument wherever it led to
arrive at the truth, no matter what the cost.
Plato believed that we cannot gain knowledge of things through our senses because the
objects of sense perception are fleeting and constantly changing. Plato stated that we can
have genuine knowledge only of changeless things, such as truth, beauty, and goodness,
which are known by the mind. He called such things ideas or forms.
Plato taught that only ideas are real and that all other things only reflect ideas. This view
became known as idealism. According to Plato, the most important idea is the idea of
good. Knowledge of good is the object of all inquiry, a goal to which all other things are

subordinate. Plato stated that the best life is one of contemplation of eternal truths.
However, he believed contemplation of eternal truths. However, he believed people who
have attained this state must return to the world of everyday life and use their skills and
knowledge to serve humanity. Plato also believed that the soul is immortal and that only
the body perishes at death. His ideas contributed to views about the body, soul, and
eternal things later developed in Christian theology.
Aristotle, Plato's greatest pupil, wrote about almost every known subject of his day. He
invented the idea of a science and of separate sciences, each having distinct principles
and dealing with different subject matter. He wrote on such topics as physics, astronomy,
psychology, biology, physiology, and anatomy. Aristotle also investigated what he called
"first philosophy," later known as metaphysics.
Aristotle created the earliest philosophic system. In his philosophy, all branches of
inquiry and knowledge are parts of some overall system and connected by the same
concepts and principles. Aristotle believed that all things in nature have some purpose.
According to his philosophy, the nature of each thing is determined by its purpose, and
all things seek to fulfill their natures by carrying out these purposes. Aristotle's basic
method of inquiry consisted of starting from what we know or think we know and then
asking how, what, and why. In his metaphysics, he developed the idea of a first cause,
which was not itself caused by anything, as the ultimate explanation of existence.
Christian theologians later adopted this idea as a basic argument for the existence of God.
Aristotle taught that everyone aims at some good. He said that happiness does not lie in
pleasure but in virtuous activity. By virtuous activity, he meant behaving according to a
mean between extremes. For example, courage is the mean between the extremes of
cowardice and foolhardiness. The highest happiness of all, Aristotle believed, was the
contemplative use of the mind.

Stoic Philosophy and Epicureanism were the two main schools of Greek philosophy that
emerged after the death of Aristotle in 322 B.C. Both schools taught that the purpose of
knowing is to enable a person to lead the best and most contented life.
Stoic philosophy was founded by Zeno of Citium. He taught that people should spend
their lives trying to cultivate virtue, the greatest good. The Stoics believed in strict
determinism--the idea that all things are fated to be. Therefore, they said, a wise and
virtuous person accepts and makes the best of what cannot be changed. Stoicism spread
to Rome. There, the chief Stoics included the statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, the
emperor Marcus Aurelius, and the teacher Epictetus.
Epicureanism was founded by Epicurus. Epicurus based his philosophy on hedonism--the
idea that the only good in life is pleasure. However, Epicurus taught that not all pleasures
are good. The only good pleasures are calm and moderate ones because extreme
pleasures could lead to pain. The highest pleasures, Epicurus said, are physical health and
peace of mind, two kinds of freedom from pain.
Skepticism was a school of philosophy founded by Pyrrho of Elis about the same time
that Stoic philosophy and Epicureanism flourished. Pyrrho taught that we can know
nothing. Our senses, he said, deceive us and provide no accurate knowledge of the way
things are. Thus, all claims to knowledge are false. Because we can know nothing, in this
view, we should treat all things with indifference and make no judgments.
Neoplatonism was a revived version of some of Plato's ideas as adapted by Plotinus, a
philosopher who may have been born in Egypt in the A.D. 200's. Neoplatonism tried to
guide the individual toward a unity--a oneness--with God, which is a state of blessedness.
Plotinus believed that the human soul yearns for reunion with God, which it can achieve
only in mystical experience. Neoplatonism provided the bridge between Greek
philosophy and early Christian bridge between Greek philosophy and early Christian

philosophy. It inspired the idea that important truths can be learned only through faith
and God's influence, not by reason.
8. Medieval Philosophy.
During the middle Ages, Western philosophy developed more as a part of Christian
theology than as an independent branch of inquiry. The philosophy of Greece and Rome
survived only in its influence on religious thought.
Saint Augustine was the greatest philosopher of the early middle Ages. In a book titled
The City of God (early 400's), Augustine interpreted human history as a conflict between
faithful Christians living in the city of God and pagans and heretics living in the city of
the world. Augustine wrote that the people of the city of God will gain eternal salvation,
but the people in the city of the world will receive eternal punishment. The book
weakened the belief in the pagan religion of Rome and helped further the spread of
Christianity.
A system of thought called scholasticism dominated medieval philosophy from about the
1100's to the 1400's. The term scholasticism refers to the method of philosophic
investigation used by teachers of philosophy and theology in the newly developing
universities of western Europe. The teachers were called scholastics. The scholastic
method consisted called scholastics. The scholastic method consisted in precise analysis
of concepts with subtle distinctions between different senses of these concepts. The
scholastics used deductive reasoning from principles established by their method to
provide solutions to problems.
Scholasticism was basically generated by the translation of Aristotle's works into Latin,
the language of the medieval Christian church. These works presented medieval thinkers
with the problem of reconciling Aristotle's great body of philosophic thought with the
Bible and Christian doctrine. The most famous scholastic was Saint Thomas Aquinas.

His philosophy combined Aristotle's thought with theology, and it eventually became the
official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church.
The great contributions of the scholastics to philosophy included major development of
the philosophy of language. The scholastics studied how features of language can affect
our understanding of the world. They also emphasized the importance of logic to
philosophic inquiry.
9. Modern Philosophy.
A great cultural movement in Europe called the Renaissance overlapped the end of the
middle Ages and formed a transition between medieval and modern philosophy. The
Renaissance began in Italy and lasted from about 1300 to about 1600. It was a time of
intellectual reawakening stemming from the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman
culture. During the Renaissance, major advances occurred in such sciences as astronomy,
physics, and mathematics. Scholars called humanists stressed the importance of human
beings and the study of classical literature as a guide to understanding life. Emphasis on
science and on humanism led to changes in the aims and techniques of philosophic
inquiry. Scholasticism declined, and philosophy was freed of its ties to medieval
theology.
One of the earliest philosophers to support the scientific method was Francis Bacon of
England. Most historians consider Bacon and Rene Descartes of France to be the
founders of modern philosophy. Bacon wrote two influential works, The Advancement of
Learning (1605) and Novum Organum (1620). He stated that knowledge was power and
that knowledge could be obtained only by the inductive method of investigation. Bacon
imagined a new world of culture and leisure that could be gained by inquiry into the laws
and processes of nature. In describing this world, he anticipated the effects of advances in
science, engineering, and technology.

Rationalism was a philosophic outlook that arose in the 1600's. The basic idea of
rationalism is that reason is superior to experience as a source of knowledge and that the
validity of sense perception must be proved from more certain principles. The rationalists
tried to determine the nature of the world and of reality by deduction from premises
themselves established as certain a priori. They also stressed the importance of
mathematical procedures. The leading rationalists were Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza,
and Gottfried Leibniz.
Descartes was a mathematician as well as a philosopher. He invented analytic geometry.
Descartes's sopher. He invented analytic geometry. Descartes's basic idea was to establish
a secure foundation for the sciences, a foundation of the sort he had found for
mathematics. He was thus much concerned with the foundations of knowledge, and he
started philosophy on its persistent consideration of epistemological problems. Descartes
was a mechanist--that is, he regarded all physical phenomena as connected mechanically
by laws of cause and effect. Descartes's philosophy generated the problem of how mind
and matter are related.
Spinoza constructed a system of philosophy on the model of geometry. He attempted to
derive philosophic conclusions from a few central axioms (supposedly self-evident
truths) and definitions. Spinoza did not view God as some superhuman being who created
the universe. He identified God with the universe. Spinoza was also a mechanist,
regarding everything in the universe as determined. Spinoza's main aim was ethical. He
wanted to show how people could be free, could lead reasonable and thus satisfying lives,
in a deterministic world.
Leibniz believed that the actual world is only one of many possible worlds. He tried to
show how the actual world is the best of all possible worlds in an effort to justify the
ways of God to humanity. Thus, he attempted to solve the problem of how a perfect and

all-powerful God could have created a world and all-powerful God could have created a
world filled with so much suffering and evil. Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton, an English
scientist, independently developed calculus. Leibniz' work in mathematics anticipated the
development of symbolic logic—the use of mathematical symbols and operations to
solve problems in logic.
Empiricism emphasizes the importance of experience and sense perception as the source
and basis of knowledge. The first great empiricist was John Locke of England in the
1600's. George Berkeley of Ireland and David Hume of Scotland further developed
empiricism in the 1700's.
Locke tried to determine the origin, extent, and certainty of human knowledge in An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). Locke argued that there are no innate
ideas--that is, ideas people are born with. He believed that when a person is born, the
mind is like a blank piece of paper. Experience is therefore the source of all ideas and all
knowledge.
Berkeley dealt with the question "If whatever a human being knows is only an idea, how
can one be sure that there is anything in the world corresponding to that idea?" Berkeley
answered that "to be is to be perceived." No object exists, he said, unless it is perceived
by some mind. Material objects are ideas in the mind and have no independent existence.
Hume extended the theories of Locke and Berkeley to a consistent skepticism about
almost everything. He maintained that everything in the mind consists of impressions and
ideas, with ideas coming from impressions. Every idea can be traced to and tested by
some earlier impression. According to Hume, we must be able to determine from what
impression we derived an idea for that idea to have meaning. An apparent idea that
cannot be traced to an impression must be meaningless. Hume also raised the question of
how can we know that the future will be like the past—that the laws of nature will

continue to operate as they have. He claimed that we can only know that events have
followed certain patterns in the past. We cannot therefore be certain that events will
continue to follow those patterns.
The Age of Reason was a period of great intellectual activity that began in the 1600's and
lasted until the late 1700's. The period is also called the Enlightenment. Philosophers of
the Age of Reason stressed the use of reason, as opposed to the reliance on authority and
scriptural revelation. For them, reason provided means of attaining the truth about the
world and of ordering human society to assure human wellbeing. The leading
philosophers included Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. They also included Jean
Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and other members of a group of French
philosophers called the philosophes.
Locke's philosophic ideas were characteristic of the Age of Reason. Locke sought to
determine the limits of human understanding and to discover what can be known within
those limits that will serve as a guide to life and conduct. He tried to show that people
should live by the principles of toleration, liberty, and natural rights. His Two Treatises
of Government (1690) provided the philosophic base for the Revolutionary War in
America and the French Revolution in the late 1700's.
The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a great German philosopher of the late 1700's,
became the foundation for nearly all later developments in philosophy. Kant's philosophy
is called critical philosophy or transcendental philosophy. Kant was stimulated by the
skeptical philosophy of Hume to try to bring about a synthesis of rationalism and
empiricism. In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant tried to provide a critical
account of the powers and limits of human reason, to determine what is knowable and
what is unknowable. Kant concluded that reason can provide knowledge only of things as
they appear to us, never of things as they are in themselves. Kant believed that the mind

plays an active role in knowing and is not a mere recorder of facts presented by the
senses. The mind does this through basic categories or forms of understanding, which are
independent of experience and without which our experience would not make sense.
Through such categories and the operations of the mind, working on sense experience,
we can have knowledge, but only of things that can be experienced.
Kant criticized the traditional arguments for the existence of God. He argued that they are
all in error because they make claims that go beyond the possibility of experience and
thus go beyond the powers of human reason. In his Critique of Practical Reason (1788),
Kant argued that practical reason (reason applied to practice) can show us how we ought
to act and also provides a practical reason for believing in God, though not a proof that
God exists.
10. Philosophy in the 1800's
Kant's philosophy stimulated various systems of thought in the 1800's, such as those of
G. W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx of Germany. Hegel developed a theory of historical
change called dialectic, in which the conflict of opposites results in the creation of a new
unity and then its opposite. Hegel's theory was transformed by Marx into dialectical
materialism. Marx believed that only material things are real. He stated that all ideas are
built on an economic base. He believed that the dialectic of conflict between capitalists
and industrial workers will lead to the establishment of communism, which he called
socialism, as an economic and political system.
Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher, was an atheist who proclaimed in Thus
Spake Zarathustra (1883-1885) that "God is dead." Nietzsche meant that the idea of God
had lost the power to motivate and discipline large masses of people. He believed that
people would have to look to some other idea to guide their lives. Nietzsche predicted the
evolution of the superman, who would be beyond the weakness of human beings and

beyond the merely human appeals to morality. He regarded such appeals as appeals to
weakness, not strength. He felt that all behavior is based on the will to power--the desire
of people to control others and their own passions. The superman would develop a new
kind of perfection and excellence through the capacity to realize the will to power
through strength, rather than weakness.
The dominant philosophy in England during the 1800's was utilitarianism, developed by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The utilitarians maintained that the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people is the test of right and wrong. They argued
that all existing social institutions, especially law and government, must be transformed
to satisfy the test of greatest happiness. In The Subjection of Women (1869), Mill wrote
that the legal subordination of (1869), Mill wrote that the legal subordination of women
to men ought to be replaced by "a principle of perfect equality." That idea was
revolutionary in Mill's time.
Philosophy in the 1900's has seen five main movements predominate. Two of these
movements, existentialism and phenomenology, have had their greatest influence in the
countries on the mainland of western Europe. The three other movements, pragmatism,
logical positivism, and philosophical analysis, have been influential chiefly in the United
States and Great Britain.
Existentialism became influential in the mid-1900's. World War II (1939-1945) gave rise
to widespread feelings of despair and of separation from the established order. These
feelings led to the idea that people have to create their own values in a world in which
traditional values no longer govern. Existentialism insists that choices have to be made
arbitrarily by individuals, who thus create themselves, because there are no objective
standards to determine choice. The most famous of the existentialist philosophers is the
French author Jean-Paul Sartre.

Phenomenology was developed by the German philosopher Edmund Husserl. Husserl
conceived the task of phenomenology, hence the task of philosophy, task of
phenomenology, hence the task of philosophy, as describing phenomena--the objects of
experience- accurately and independently of all assumptions derived from science. He
thought that this activity would provide philosophic knowledge of reality.
Pragmatism, represented in the 1900's by William James and John Dewey of the United
States, maintains knowledge is subordinate to action. The meaning and truth of ideas are
determined by their relation to practice.
Logical positivism, developed in Vienna, Austria, in the 1920's, believes philosophy
should analyze the logic of the language of science. It regards science as the only source
of knowledge and claims metaphysics is meaningless. It bases this claim on the principle
of verifiability, by which a statement is meaningful only if it can be verified by sense
experience.
Philosophical analysis generally tries to solve philosophic problems through analysis of
language or concepts. Some versions of this philosophy attempt to show that traditional
philosophic problems dissolve--that is, disappear--on proper analysis of the terms in
which they are expressed. Other versions use linguistic analysis to throw light on, not
dissolve, traditional philosophic problems. The most influential philosophers practicing
philosophic analysis have been Bertrand Russell of England and Ludwig Wittgenstein,
who was born in Austria but studied and taught in England.

CHAPTER 3
LOGIC
1. Argument
Philosophy is the quest for truth about the most basic questions of human existence:
"What is truth?" "What is knowledge?" "What is the good?" "What are our duties?"
"Does God exist?" "Are we free or determined?" "What is our personal identity?" To
answers to these and other questions, philosophers do not simply state their views and
allow a reader to agree or disagree, rather they attempt to persuade readers by providing
reasons why their view should be accepted. When a view is put forward with reasons
why it should be accepted, this is called an "argument." Simply put, an argument is a
collection of statements where one or more are put forward as reasons why we should
believe one or more of the other statements. The statements put forward as reasons are
called "premises" and the statement(s) being supported is called the "conclusion." An
argument can be short and simple or it can be long and complex. An example of a short
argument:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Philosophical writing usually contains long and complex arguments. A philosopher may
write a chapter of a book, or the entire book, presenting arguments for the claim that God
exists.

A student of philosophy can plunge into reading and hope to follow the arguments
presented, and to sort out the strong arguments from the weak arguments, i.e. those that
persuade us that we should agree with the view being defended, and perhaps alter our
previously held views, from those that do not so persuade us. Students will be better
prepared to identify, understand and evaluate arguments of philosophers if they have a
basic understanding of the methods for evaluating arguments. Logic is a sub-discipline of
philosophy and is the study of arguments. It can also be described as the theory of critical
reasoning: "critical" because it seeks standards or methods of evaluation; "reasoning"
because it is concerned with reasons given for our views.
An understanding of logic, or critical reasoning, is not valuable only for the study of
philosophy. In most areas of human endeavor, people give reasons why we should accept
certain views and reject others. Some scientists and environmentalists present reasons
why we should accept the view that the earth is warming and that we must reduce the
emission of carbon dioxide or face disastrous consequences. Some persons respond to
this with reasons why the consequences of warming will not be disastrous for the
environment and that the policies called for to reduce carbon dioxide emission would
have disastrous consequences for our economy. A concerned person will have to evaluate
the arguments of both sides in this dispute to know which view to believe. Competency
in logic will assist a person to do this. Logic alone won't decide the matter, but it will
enable one to identify the arguments that are put forward and point in the direction of
what one would have to know or decide in order to take a position on the issue.

2. Identifying Premises and Conclusions
Philosophy and other areas of inquiry abound with arguments. But not all written and
spoken communications contains arguments. Consider the following two sets of
statements:
There is a God. Those who believe in him will have everlasting life.
God exists, for the world is an organized system and all organized systems must
have a creator. The creator of the world is God.
Both sets state that God exists. The first set makes additional claims about God, but does
not supply reasons why one should believe that God exists. The second set provides
reasons why God exists. The argument of the second set of statements can be organized
into premises and a conclusion.
Premise 1. The world is an organized system.
Premise 2. Every organized system must have a creator.
Conclusion. The creator of the world is God.
The structure of the argument can be recognized because the word "for" follows the
statement "God exists." and precedes the statements that are Premises 1 and 2. This tells
us that the statements are premises for the conclusion, There are many words that
function as premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
Premise indicators:
for, since, because, for the reason that, granted that
Conclusion indicators:
thus, therefore, so, hence, consequently, it is shown that

Other expressions function as indicators of premises and conclusions:
.....(premise).... shows that ....(conclusion) ....
...................... proves that ...........
.......................implies that ............
......................entails that ...............
..................... are the reasons for .........
.....(conclusion)...is established by ......(premise)........
..........................is shown by ...............................
.........................is implied by ..........................
.........................is proven by ...........................
.........................supported by ..................
This is not an exhaustive list of those words and expressions that function as indictors of
premises and conclusions. Nor does every use of these words and expressions function as
a premise or conclusion indicator. In most cases, the context will tell us how the words
are being used. To further complicate matters, not all writers and speakers provide these
indicators for their arguments. The reader must determine whether the writer intends to
present an argument and, if so, which statements are the premises and which the
conclusions.
Examples:
(1)
Since all humans have the capacity for creative thought and all capacities should
be developed and used, it follows that all humans should think creatively.

This is obviously an argument. The occurrence of "since" tells us that the first statements
in the sentence are premises and "it follows that" tells us that the last statement is a
conclusion. The standard form for representing an argument is to list the premises first
and then the conclusion with a line drawn under the list of premises.
P1. All humans have the capacity for creative thought.
P2. All capacities should be developed and used
C. All humans should think creatively .
If the statements in this example were reversed, it would be the same argument .
All humans should think creatively because all humans have the capacity for
creative thought and all capacities should be developed and used.
The premises and conclusion are the same in this version. The use of "because" tells us
that the statements following it are premises, and the statement preceding it is the
conclusion. The standard form is identical to the above.
(2)
That Michelangelo's David is a truth is shown by the view that beauty is truth and
truth is beauty and by the beauty of Michelangelo's David.
The expression "is shown by" informs us that the conclusion is "Michelangelos's David is
a truth." and the premises are the two statements which follow.
The standard form for the argument is:
P1. Beauty is truth and truth is beauty
P2. Michelangelo's David is beautiful
C. Michelangelo's David is a truth
Note that when writing the standard form of the argument, some words may be deleted.
We need not write P1. as "The view that beauty is truth and truth beauty." When writing
out an argument in standard form you only need to write out the central information of

the statements and not the words that characterize the statement is some way and lend to
the style of the writing rather than the content.
(3)
Given that many persons are sentenced to death due to mistakes or careless work
by police or prosecutors, the death penalty should be abolished.
This is an argument. The words "Given that" reveal that the first part of the sentence is a
reason for the second part of the sentence. In standard form it is:
P1. Many persons are sentenced to death due to mistakes or careless work by police
or prosecutors.
C. The death penalty should be abolished
In addition to the explicit premise that many persons are sentenced to death by mistake or
careless work by police or prosecutors, there is an obvious implicit (unstated) premise of
the argument This implicit premise can take many forms; one way to put it is: "It is
wrong for persons who do not receive a proper trail to be found guilty and sentenced to
death."
The structure of the argument with the implicit premise is:
P1. Many persons are sentenced to death due to mistake or careless work by police
or prosecutors.
P2. It is wrong for persons who do not receive a proper trial to be found guilty and
sentenced to death. (implicit)
C. The death penalty should be abolished.
It is common in ordinary writing and speaking, i.e. when not doing so as an illustration in
logic, for premises, and sometimes conclusions, to be implicit. The writer may be aware
of this and not make the statements because it is assumed that every reader will know
what they are, or it may be that the writer is unaware. Further, the implicit premise may

be non-controversial, as is the above, or it may be the most controversial and doubtful
premise of the argument. Writing arguments in standard form and supplying implicit
premises allows us to identify all the reasons needed to support the conclusion, and thus
reach a better evaluation of the argument.
(4)
All restrictions on pornography violate the First Amendment. All restrictions on
pornography are restrictions of free speech. All restrictions on freedom of speech
violate the First Amendment.
There are no premise and conclusion indicators in this set of statements. We could
interpret it as simply a collection of three related statements and not as an argument.
However, we can recognize a pattern that is a form of an argument. The pattern is:
P1. All A are B
P2. All B are C
C. All A are B
In this case the standard form of the argument is:
P1. All restrictions on pornography are restrictions of free speech.
P2. All restrictions of free speech violate the First Amendment.
C. All restrictions on pornography violate the First Amendment.
In this example:
A = restrictions on pornography
B = restrictions of free speech
C = violates the First Amendment
So far we have dealt with single arguments, those with one conclusion and two premises.
Arguments in philosophy and in everyday discourse are seldom single arguments. Rather
they are extended multiple arguments in which several distinct arguments may be made

for the same conclusion or in which the conclusion of one or more arguments may
function as premises for a further argument.
3. Deductive Arguments: Validity and Soundness
When evaluating arguments, i.e. determining whether they are good or bad, strong or
weak, persuasive or not persuasive, there are two questions we should ask (1) whether the
premises provided appropriate support for the conclusion; (2) whether the premises are,
in fact, true. These are the steps taken when evaluating a single argument. When
evaluating a complex argument each of the single arguments of which it is composed
must be evaluated and then an overall evaluation of how the single arguments fit together
must be made.
3.1. Logical Correctness
The first question is a matter of "logical correctness."
An argument is considered to be "logically correct" when it satisfies the following
condition:
If the premises were true, this fact would constitute good grounds for accepting the
conclusion as true.
Notice that this condition presupposes that one is dealing with statements that are capable
of being true or false. Nevertheless this condition is not concerned with whether the
premises are in fact true. In evaluating arguments for logical correctness one is concerned
with the relation between the premises and the conclusion not with the question of
whether the premises are in fact true.
3.2. Deductive Validity
To make this condition more specific we have to specify what we take to be "good
grounds". Certainly the truth of the premises guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion
would mean the truth of the premises provided good grounds for accepting the

conclusion as true. The criterion of logical correctness that requires the guarantee is
called "the deductive criterion" of logical correctness an argument form is deductively
valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false given its premises are true.
Notice that this criterion for deductive validity does not require that neither the premises
are true nor that the conclusion is true, rather it says that IF the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true. Deductive validity is a function of the form, or structure, of the
statements in the argument and not a function of whether the statements are in fact true.
Consider the following two examples:
Argument 1 Argument 2
P1. All humans are mortal P1. All mammals are four-legged
P2. You (the reader) are human P2. You (the reader) are a mammal
C. You (the reader) are mortal C. You (the reader) are four-legged
In Argument 1, both premises and the conclusion are true. In Argument 2, P1 and the
conclusion are false. Notice that the arguments have the same form or structure:
P1. All A are B
P2. x is an A
C. x is a B
It is because of this form that we can say that the truth of the premises guarantees the
truth of the conclusion. IF it were true that all mammals are four-legged, then it must be
true that you, as a mammal, are four-legged. The argument form in these examples is one
of many deductively valid argument forms. Other deductively valid arguments will be
presented later. If an argument in ordinary discourse fits into a deductively valid
argument form, then we can say that if the premises are true the conclusion must be true
even though we don't know whether the premises are true. We can know that an

argument is valid and not know the meaning of the terms in the premises and conclusion.
For example:
P1. All pirons are elactical.
P2. All elacticals are verdish.
C. All pirons are verdish.
The terms in this argument may be from a highly specialized science in which they can
be determined true or false or they may be nonsense. But that makes no difference to the
validity of the argument. It is a deductively valid argument because of the form. IF the
premises turn out to be true, they guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
3.3. Some Deductively Valid Argument Forms
It is useful for understanding and evaluating arguments to have knowledge of a relatively
small number of deductively valid argument forms. Much of what you read in philosophy
can be analyzed with them.
3.3.a. Universal Syllogism
Form Example
P1. All A are B P1. All dogs are mammals
P2. All B are C P2. All mammals are warm-blooded
C. All A are C C. All dogs are warm-blooded
3.3.b. Predicate Instantiation
Form Example
P1. All A are B P1. All dogs are warm-blooded
P2. x is an A P2. Fido is a dog
C. x is a B C. Fido is warm-blooded

These two argument forms are deductively valid. This means that whatever is substituted
for A, B, C and x, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion,
provided the substitution is uniform, e.g. whatever is substituted for "A" in one premises
must be substituted for "A" in all occurrences of "A" in other premises or conclusion.
These two argument forms are part of predicate logic. " is a dog" and "is warm-blooded"
are predicates, i.e. the properties of being a dog or being warm-blooded can be applied to
individuals, e.g. Fido. Also, it can be asserted that everything that has one property also
has an additional property, e.g. all things that are dogs are also things that are warm-
blooded. These two argument forms are only a small part of predicate logic, still they are
useful when critically reading a text.
Propositional logic is the logic of propositions, or statements. In this logic, the variables
in the valid argument forms are place holders for complete statements. In propositional
logic statements are connected by logical connectives: "and", "or", "if ... then," and "not."
The following are a few of the useful deductively valid argument forms in propositional
logic.
3.3.c. affirming the Antecedent (also called Modus Ponens)
Form Example
P1. If p then q. P1. If John is a freshman then he can't enroll in
Physics
P2. P P2. John is a freshman.
C. q C. John can't enroll in Physics

3.3.d. Denying the Consequent (also called Modus Tollens)
Form Example
P1. If p then q P1. If Mary is a freshman then she lives on campus
P2. not q P2. Mary does not live on campus
C. not p C. Mary is not a freshman
3.3.e. Disjunctive Argument
Form Example
P1. p or q P1. Either John loves Mary or he loves Susan
P2. not p P2. John does not love Mary
C. q C. John loves Susan
3.3.f. Hypothetical Argument
Form Example
P1. If p then q P1. If Mary loves John then she loves a loser.
P2. If q then r P2. If Mary loves a loser then she will be unhappy
C. If p then r C. If Mary loves John then she will be unhappy
3.3.g. Chain Argument
Form Example
P1. If p then q P1. If John is a loser then he will make Mary unhappy
P2. If q then r P2. If John makes Mary unhappy Susan will hate him
P3. P P3. John is a loser
C. r C. Susan will hate John

The order of the premises in the above argument forms is the order for which most
people intuitively see the validity of the arguments. In everyday discourse, the premises
and conclusions won't always be presented in this order. Consider a "real life" version of
the example of Chain Argument.
You know, Susan will wind up hating John. I'll tell you why. He's a loser, and if so,
he will make Mary unhappy. And if that makes Mary unhappy, then Susan will
hate him.
The premises and conclusion can be labeled as follows:
You know, (C) Susan will wind up hating John. I'll tell you why. (P3) He's a loser,
and (P1) if so, he will make Mary unhappy. And (P2) if that makes Mary unhappy,
then Susan will hate him.
3.3.h. Reductio Ad Absurdum
Deductive arguments can be used to refute a view, as well as to prove a view. A form of
refutation commonly used in Philosophy and other fields of inquiry is "Reductio ad
absurdum "(literally "reducing to absurdity".) The reductio method identifies a premise
that is not obviously false, combines it with other premises that are clearly true and then
deduces by a valid argument a conclusion that is a contradiction or absurd (clearly known
to be false.)
The basic structure of a reductio argument is:
P1. Q (the premise in doubt)
P2. (known to be true)
P3. (known to be true)
C. R (absurd, clearly known to be false)

For a successful reductio argument the argument form must be valid. For it if is, the
premises cannot all be true and the conclusion false. Given the false conclusion, P1 must
be false, since P2 and P3 are known to be true.
Suppose someone argues that we ought to have the death penalty for first degree murder
on the ground that the alternative - life in prison without parole - is a more severe penalty
than death. This argument for the death penalty has been rejected by the following
reductio ad absurdum argument. It reduces the premise that life in prison without parole
is more severe than the death penalty to an absurdity. Abbreviating somewhat, the
argument is as follows:
P1. Life is a more severe penalty than death In doubt
P2. Lesser crimes should receive less severe penalties Obviously true
P3. 2nd degree murder is a lesser crime than 1st degree murder. Obviously true
C. Life for 1st degree murder & death for 2nd degree murder. Absurd
P1 is the key premise in the argument for the death penalty. By showing that it leads to
an absurdity in a valid argument, it is shown that the premise must be rejected and so also
the argument for the death penalty.
A reductio argument is evaluated by asking: 1) does the premise in doubt really imply the
absurdity, i.e. is the reductio argument valid; 2) is the conclusion really absurd; 3) can the
premise in doubt be altered in a minor way so it does not imply the absurdity? Which of
these approaches would be the best response by an advocate of the death penalty to the
reductio argument?
Examples of reductio ad absurdum arguments can be found in the dialogues of Plato.
Socrates asks a question and the proceeds to refute the answer by showing that it leads to
a clearly false conclusion.

"Well said Cephalus, I replied, but as concerns your answer that justice is speaking
the truth and keeping promises, are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend
when in his right mind has deposited weapons with me and he asks for them when
he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that
I should or that I should be right in doing so, no more than they would say that I
ought to always speak the truth to one in his condition."
"You are quite right he replied."
"But then, speaking the truth and keeping promises is not a correct account of
justice."
The structure of the argument is as follows:
P1. It is just to tell the truth and keep promises In Doubt
P2. A madman asks for the return of weapons I have promised to return. True
C. I should return the weapons to him or tell him where they are. Absurd
Since the conclusion is absurd, P1 cannot be a correct account of justice.
Philosophers, and other thinkers, frequently use the method of reductio ad absurdum. A
student of philosophy can use them to assess the views of the philosopher he or she is
reading. There is no mechanical way to generate reductio arguments. You must be
imaginative and sometimes have knowledge about the subject matter of the view you
wish to challenge. If you are not able to think of a reductio argument, that does not entail

that the premises of the argument under consideration are true; it may be that you are not
knowledgeable enough or clever enough.
4. Examples
4.1. Example a
Many of the examples above are simple and not what you would encounter in real
discourse of everyday and in the arguments of philosophers. They were used to most
clearly show the validity of the argument forms. Here's an example from philosophy.
If we can cause animals to suffer, then what we do to them not only hurts them, it
can harm them: and if it can harm them, then it can detract from the experiential
quality of their life, considered over time; and if it can do that, then we must view
these animals as retaining their identify over time and as having a good or ill of
their own.
Tom Regan, the Case for Animal Rights
The first step in reconstructing this argument into its logical form is to label or pull-out
the statements that can be the premises and conclusion of the argument. In this process
we can remove what is redundant and those words not necessary to the structure of the
argument.
(1) If we cause suffering to animals then we harm them.
(2) If we harm animals then we detract from the experiential quality of their life
(3) If we detract from the experiential quality of their life, then animals must be
viewed as having an identity and a good or ill of their own.

Now that we have simplified the argument into these three statements, we can see that
this is an extended version of Hypothetical Argument, without the obvious conclusion. It
is an extended version of Hypothetical Argument because it has three premises rather
than two. Abbreviating in order to see the structure:
Standard Form Logical Form
P1. If cause suffering then cause harm P1. If p then q
P2. If cause harm then detract from quality of life P2. If q then r
P3. If detract from quality of life then an identity P3. If r then s
The obvious conclusion from these three premises is:
C. If cause suffering then an identity C. If p then s
It may be that Regan only means to present this hypothetical argument, but since we
know that the title of the book is The Case for Animal Rights, it is reasonable to draw the
conclusion that Regan will reach, namely that animals have an identity over time and a
good or ill of their own. This is "s" in the formal reconstruction. To reach this conclusion
we only need add the premise that we can cause animals suffering. The logical form of
the argument is:
P1. If p then q
P2. If q then r
P3. If r then s
P4. p
C. s

This is an extended version of Chain Argument; it has three "if... then..." premises rather
than two.
4.2. Example b
Ralph will become a better student. He is studying logic and anyone who studies
logic will be a better student.
Standard from Predicate
Instantiation
P1. Anyone who studies logic will become a better student P1. All A are B
P2. Ralph is studying logic P2. x is an A
C. Ralph will become a better student. C. x is a B
Notice that "anyone" is being used in the same way as "all." The premise could be
written, "All those who study logic will become a better student." The word "every" can
function in the same way, e.g. "Every student who studies logic will become a better
student."
4.3. Example c
Bloogs does not wish to be an accountant for if he wished to be an accountant he
would be enrolled in the Business College, and he is not.
Standard Form Denying the Consequent
P1. If Bloogs wished to be an accountant,
then he would be enrolled in the Business College. P1. If p then q
P2. Bloogs is not enrolled in the Business College P2. not q
C. Bloogs does not wish to be an accountant C. not p

4.3. Example d
Look Bloogs, can't you see that this sample is verigated? Let me convince you. All
the pirons we have found so far have been elactic. And all the elactic samples we
have are verigated. This sample is a piron, so it has to be verigated.
The conclusion of this argument is "This sample is verigated." The argument uses "all,"
so the approach to reconstructing the argument is to use the two predicate logic argument
forms.
Standard Form Logical Form
P1. All pirons so far are elactic. P1. All P are E
P2. All elactics are verigated P2. All E are V
P3. This sample is a piron P3. x is a P
C. This sample is verigated C. x is a V
This argument does not fit one of the two valid argument forms in predicate logic. It is a
combination of Universal Syllogism and Predicate Instantiation.
P1. All pirons are elactics
P2. All elactics are verigated
C. All pirons are verigated
P3. This sample is a piron
C. This sample is verigated

Only the simplest arguments in ordinary language can be reconstructed as one of the
basic valid argument forms listed above. More often, arguments will have to reconstruct
as a combination of basic valid argument forms.
4.5. Example e
The universal right to health care will be enacted if those who have adequate health
care vote for liberal democrats. They will vote for liberal democrats if they are
concerned about the lack of access to health care of those who are poor and do not
have adequate health care. Those who have adequate health care are concerned
about those who do not. So, the universal right to health care will be enacted.
Standard From
P1. If those who have adequate health care vote for liberal democrats then universal
right to health care will be enacted.
P2. If those who have adequate health care are concerned about the lack of access
to health care of those who are poor and do not have adequate health care then they
will vote for liberal democrats.
P3. Those who have adequate health care are concerned about those who are poor
and do not have adequate health care.
C. Universal health care will be enacted

Notice that in the original statement of the argument, the "if" clause of the conditional
statements came after the "then" clause. This is common in ordinary discourse. The order
is reversed in the standard form. If we rewrite the standard from using the notation of
propositional logic, we have the following:
P1. If p then q
P2. If r then p
P3. r
C. q
This is an instance of the valid argument form Chain Argument although the order of the
first two premises is not the same. To clearly see this form we can rewrite the argument
form as follows:
P2. If r then p
P1. If p then q
P3. r
C. q
5. Soundness
So far we have been concerned with the validity of arguments; we have been answering
the first question about arguments, viz. whether the premises provide appropriate support
for the conclusion. Seven deductively valid argument forms have been presented. The
second question about arguments is whether the premises are true. This is just as
important as whether an argument is logically correct. If an argument is valid, and its
premises are false, then the argument for the conclusion is not persuasive, for validity of

an argument only tells us that IF the premises are true the conclusion is guaranteed to be
true. If the premises are false, the conclusion of the valid argument may in fact be true,
but the valid argument hasn't shown this. Consider the following argument:
P1. If Detroit is on the east coast then is it in Michigan
P2. Detroit is on the east coast.
C. Detroit is in Michigan
This is a valid argument, an instance of Affirming the Antecedent. The conclusion is true,
and both premises are false. If the geography of the U.S. were different than it is, then the
premises could be true and would thereby guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
An argument that is valid and has true premises is a sound argument.
Validity + true premises = soundness
Both conditions are required for soundness. An argument with true premises that is not
valid is not a sound argument. Assume that Bill lives in Michigan
P1. If Bill lives in Michigan then he lives in the mid west
P2. Bill lives in the mid west
C. Bill lives in Michigan
The premises and conclusion of this argument are true, but it is not a valid argument and
hence it is not a sound argument. The argument form is not Affirming the Antecedent nor
is it Denying the Consequent. Rather it is Affirming the Consequent.
P1. If p then q
P2. q
C. p

The invalidity of Affirming the Consequent can be shown as follows: in a valid argument
the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; so if an argument form
can be constructed with true premises and a false conclusion it cannot be valid.
P1. If Brenda's large ring is a real diamond then it is valuable
P2. Brenda's ring is valuable
C. Brenda's ring is a large real diamond.
This argument is not valid because the premises can be true and the conclusion false. P1.
is true; large real diamonds are valuable. Suppose Brenda's ring is a real ruby, then it is
valuable and hence P2 is true. But if her ring is a real ruby, then the conclusion is false.
So this is not a valid argument, and therefore it is not sound, even though the premises
are true.
6. Determining Truth of Premises.
In the examples above the premises used were known true or false by common
knowledge or by stipulation. This will not be so in the case of arguments commonly
encountered in the real world.
To determine the truth or falsity of premises, we have to know relevant information about
the subject matter in the premises. This is unlike validity. To determine validity, we have
to be competent speakers of the natural language used in the argument so we can sort out
premises and conclusions, and we have to know deductively valid forms of argument.
Whether the premises are true is irrelevant to validity.
The truth or falsity of premises is not a subject matter of logic, but of all the other areas
of human knowledge and inquiry. Determining whether a valid argument about
environmental hazards is also sound, i.e. its premises are true, depends on our knowledge

of environmental science. However, there are some matters of logic that clarify inquiry
into the truth of premises.
Propositions, i.e. declarative statements, can be divided into three types: empirical,
normative and conceptual. Empirical statements are statements of fact; they say
something about how the world is. The following are empirical statements:
1. The mean distance from the earth to the moon is 238,866 miles.
2. Humans are descended from non-human primates
3. The Amazon River is the largest river in the world.
4. The disagreement over the morality of slavery was a cause of the Civil War.
5. The rate of acceleration due to gravity on earth is 32 feet per second per second.
6. The costs of health care are increasing faster than the rate of inflation.
Normative statements are statements about how things ought to be in the world, or about
how things in the world are good, bad, right, wrong, evil, our duty, our right. Examples
are:
1. Killing an innocent human being is immoral.
2. Love thy neighbor.
3. Every American should have access to adequate health care.
4. We must stop polluting the environment with toxic waste from industrial plants.
5. We have a duty to tell the truth even when doing so would be to our disadvantage.
6. Physician assisted suicide ought to be legally permissible.

Conceptual statements are statements about what the concepts expressed by words mean.
Examples are:
1. A bachelor is an unmarried male.
2. An electron is a negatively charged particle circling the nucleus of an atom.
3. A legal right is an enforceable claim that a person may do or not do some act
without interference from others.
4. First degree murder in the law is the killing of one person by another with the
premeditated intent to kill.
5. A bicep is the contractor muscle in the upper arm.
6. A touchdown is scored whenever an offensive player has possession of the
football in the end zone.
When these kinds of statements appear in argument we determine their truth in different
ways. The truth of conceptual statements can often be determined by our personal
knowledge of how we use the terms. In the event that we are not sure of how terms are
used, we can consult a dictionary. In most cases a standard collegiate dictionary will
suffice, but sometimes the terms are from a technical field and do not appear in a
standard dictionary, or the author is using the term in a technical way that does not match
the definition in a dictionary. Or, the dictionary may give us more than one definition. In
that case we will have to discern what an author means by a term by noting how it is
used, unless of course the author provides a definition of the term. One of the things to
watch for in an argument is clarity of use of terms and consistent use of terms in the
premises and conclusion.
The truth or falsity of empirical statements is determined in the first place by observation.
The distance of the moon from the earth has been accurately determined by the
observations of astronomers. The increase in the cost of health care is determined by

economists and others carefully tracking the records of cost of various health care
procedures over a period of several years. We commonly know the truth of empirical
statements without making our own observations. For example, we know how far it is
from New York to Los Angeles not because we have made our own measurements, but
because we can look it up somewhere or ask someone we believe has more knowledge
then we do. Many of our most important beliefs about the world are like this. None of us
can make direct observations to confirm all the beliefs we rely on in our life. We have to
trust the expertise and honesty of others. If the premises in an argument are not common
knowledge, we ought to be sure that the sources of the facts stated are experts, honest and
not biased. If we cannot determine that immediately, we have to set aside accepting or
rejecting the conclusion of a valid argument until we are able to ascertain this.
Students frequently hold the view that normative statements are not true or false but
simply a matter of opinion. They sometimes add that this means that one person's view is
just as "true" as any others'. There is a correct intuition behind this, namely that
normative statements cannot be determined true or false by observation, i.e. they are not
empirical statements. Many philosophers share the view that we cannot say that
normative statements are true or false. But this does not imply that one normative
statement is just as acceptable as its contrary. One example is the statement that "It is
wrong to kill an innocent human being." Would anyone of us seriously entertain the view
that it is morally permissible to kill an innocent human being? The view that all
normative statements are equally acceptable may stem from an unbalanced diet of
examples. The morality of abortion is controversial, so also the question of whether the
death penalty is a just form of punishment. But these controversial cases should not lead
us to regard all normative statements as controversial and the debates about them
irreconcilable. If an argument has normative premises, we need to ask ourselves whether

they are acceptable. If we find the normative premises acceptable and the empirical
premises true, and the argument is valid, then we must accept the conclusion.
Arguments with normative conclusions frequently do not state a normative premise. An
earlier example was:
Given that many persons are sentenced to death due to mistakes or careless work
by police or prosecutors, the death penalty should be abolished.
This argument was constructed into premises and conclusion are follows:
P1. Many persons are sentenced to death due to mistake or careless work by police
or prosecutors.
P2. It is wrong for persons who do not receive a proper trial to be found guilty and
be sentenced to death.
C. The death penalty should be abolished
P2. Is an implicit premise. Without it the argument is not valid. P1. is an empirical
statement and C. is a normative statement. Validity is sometimes characterized as an
argument where the conclusion is contained in the premises, or it is said that there can't
be anything in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises. So, for C to
be a valid conclusion there must be a normative statement in the premises. P1 states a
matter of fact; assuming it is true, it does not alone support the conclusion. It is good
reason for abolishing the death penalty, only when we also state that what it describes

ought not to happen, that it is wrong that it happens. Philosophers summarize this by
stating that you cannot infer a normative conclusion from only empirical premises.
7. Counter Examples
One way to cast doubt on the truth of a premises is to find a counter example. This
technique is used to show that one or more of an arguments premises are false. It is most
effective against premises that make universal statements.
P1. All poodles are white or black
P2. Sara's dog is a poodle
C. Sara's dog is white or black.
This is a valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true. But P1 can
be shown false by pointing out a poodle that is brown. You may be able to do this
because you or someone you know has a brown poodle. Whenever there is a universal
claim in the premises of an argument, trying to think of a counter example is a good way
to cast doubt on its truth.
An example from philosophy is St. Augustine's refutation of the claim of astrology that a
person's future can be predicted by the position of the stars at the time of the person's
birth. This view is committed to the following:
1. The positions of the stars at the time of a person's birth can be used to
predict the person's future.
What follows from this is:
2. If two persons are born at the same time, then the predictions of their future
will be the same.

Augustine observed that in the case of twins, they are born at the same time and under
nearly identical circumstances. So, astrology would predict the same future for them.
Augustine further noted that twins do not have the same future. The major events in their
lives are not the same. The difference in the lives of twins is a counter example to the
astrologers claim that the position of the stars at the time of birth can be used to predict a
person's future.
The method of counter example can be used to show that the conclusion of a valid
argument is false and therefore one or more premises must be false. For, if an argument is
valid then the premises can't be true and the conclusion false. We can apply the
astrologer's claim to a particular case.
P1. All persons born when the stars are in arrangement C will have futures F1
P2. Bill and Bob are twins both born when the stars were in arrangement C
C. Bill and Bob will both have futures F1.
Counter Example: Bill had future F1 and Bob had a different future, F2. This shows that
C is false and therefore that either P1 or P2 is false. P2 is an easily confirmed fact, so P1
is the false premise.
Counter examples are effective against universal claims. So one way they can be avoided
is to not make universal claims. An astrologer might modify P1 to something like, "It is
highly likely that all persons born under the same arrangement of stars will have the same
future, but they will not when their futures are influenced by things in the heavens we
cannot know."

8 Non-Deductive Arguments
8.1. Distinguishing Deductive and Non-deductive Argument Forms
In the section on deductive arguments, the general concept of "logical correctness" was
defined as follows:
If the premises were true, this would constitute good grounds for accepting the
conclusion as true.
Deductive logical correctness (validity) was defined as:
An argument form is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its
conclusion is false given its premises are true.
Not all arguments encountered in philosophy and other areas of inquiry can be
formulated as deductive arguments. Non-deductive arguments are those argument forms
in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and yet
they can be strong arguments. Compare the following two arguments:
P1. All freshmen are between 18 and 22 years of age
P2. John is a freshman
C1. John is between 18 and 22 years of age
P3 90% of freshmen surveyed have been between 18 and 22 years of age
P4. John is a freshman
C2. John is between 18 and 22 years of age.
The first argument is deductively valid, but we would certainly question the truth of P1.
So we would be reluctant to consider it sound. The second argument is a more plausible

way of constructing what a speaker would report. It is a strong argument, but the truth of
the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. We are aware of freshman
who are younger than 18 and older than 22.
Deductive validity is only one criterion for the logical correctness of arguments. When an
argument does not fit a deductively valid form then the criterion for logical correctness
is:
If the premises were true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
This is a matter of degree. In the second argument if only 10 freshmen at a large college
were surveyed and 9 of them are 18 -22 the argument is not strong. But, if 500 freshmen
were surveyed and 450 were 18 -22, this is a stronger argument. Yet it is possible that the
premise is true and the conclusion false.
Common types of non-deductive arguments are inductive arguments (both general to
specific and specific to general), analogical arguments, and explanations. NOTE. Do not
make the mistake that deductive arguments are general to specific and inductive
arguments specific to general. The arguments examined above are inductive arguments
and they go from general premises to specific conclusions. Universal Generalization is a
deductively valid argument form and it goes from general to general. A deductively valid
argument can go from specific premises to a specific conclusion. For example:
The man who shot the duke in 1923 was killed later that year. Kraznakov was alive
in 1924. Therefore, Kraznakov is not the man who shot the duke.

8.2. Specific to General Arguments.
Arguments of this sort are commonly called empirical generalizations because they start
with premises reporting specific observations of the world and infer a general statement
about the world, i.e. from a sample of a population to the entire population. The
schematic form of empirical generalization is:
P1. X% of a sample of F are G
C. Most likely, X% of all F are G
Examples
P1. 33% of Midvale College students surveyed said they are Republicans
C. 33% of Midvale College students are Republicans
P1. 51% of a sample of registered voters said that they will vote for Senator
Bloogs.
C1. 51% of all registered voters will vote for Bloogs.
C2. Bloogs will most likely win the election.
These arguments do not guarantee the truth of their conclusions when the premises are
true. So, the criteria for logical correctness must be different than that for deductive
arguments. The strong making characteristics of empirical generalizations are: 1) the
evidence in the premises are true; 2) the sample size is large enough; 3) the sample is
representative; 4) no counter evidence to the conclusion .
A person reading or hearing the argument about Republicans at Midvale College may
doubt the truth of the premises because she does a quick survey of students and finds that
20% say they are Republicans. This would also be counter evidence to the conclusion.
Neither of the examples above state how many individuals out of the total population

were sampled. If Midvale has 5000 students and only 9 were surveyed, that would not be
as strong evidence for the conclusion as sampling 900 students. Nor does either example
tell us how the sample was selected. If the students selected were only those living on
campus and excluded those living off campus, the sample would not be representative of
the entire Midvale College population. If the voters surveyed were those living in one
part of the state, then they may not be representative of the entire voting population. In
order to avoid a non-representative sample, survey researchers commonly select the
sample at random so that each member of the total population has an equal probability of
being selected.
8.3. General to Specific Arguments
These arguments will have statistical premises (statements with "most", "many" "few", "a
certain percentage.") As in the case of specific to general arguments, counter evidence to
the premises or conclusion will weaken the argument. Another method of evaluating the
strength of these arguments depends on background knowledge and knowledge of the
specifics in the argument. Two general to specific arguments can have true premises and
yield incompatible conclusions.
Examples
P1. Men who eat a diet high in fat are a high risk for a heart attack.
P2. Jones eats a diet high in fat.
C1. Jones is at high risk for a heart attack
P3 Men who are not overweight, who do not smoke and who exercise regularly are
at low risk for a heart attack.
P4. Jones is not overweight, does not smoke and exercises regularly
C2. Jones is at low risk for a heart attack.

The problem with both arguments is that neither of them consider all of the factors
relevant to a heart attack. A stronger argument would be one that considers all four of the
above factors and compares the rate of heart attacks for those men who have none of the
four factors with those who have one, two, three and four of the factors. If Jones has two
of the risk factors, then the important information for Jones would be his comparison to
those who have one and those who have none of the risk factors.
8.4. Analogical Arguments
This is a common type of non-deductive argument. Two things are analogous if they
share one or more properties, i.e. they are similar in some respects. Hockey and soccer
are analogous because in both a player has to put the ball into a net to score. An argument
by analogy is an argument that because two or more things share a specific set of
properties they will also share a further property. The general schema for arguments by
analogy is:
P1. x has properties A, B, and C
P2. y has properties A, B and C
P3. x has property D
C. y has property D
Arguments by analogy are not limited to comparing single entities.
P1. t, v and x have properties A, B and C
P2. y has properties A, B, and C
P3. t, v, and x have the property D
C. y has property D

Arguments by analogy, like empirical generalizations and general to specific arguments,
do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion when the premises are true. They are strong
or weak depending on features of the argument.
Examples
A weak analogical argument:
P1. Bob has red hair, is from San Francisco and majors in Philosophy
P2. Bill has red hair and is from San Francisco
C. Bill is a major in Philosophy
A criterion for a strong analogical argument is that the similarities are relevant to the
inferred property. In this case hair color and city of origin are not relevant to what a
student's major is. A stronger argument would be:
P1. Bob is reflective, likes to discuss deep subjects , reads a lot and is a Philosophy
major
P2. Bill is reflective, likes to discuss deep subjects, and reads a lot
C. Bill is a major in Philosophy
The premises of this argument could be true and the conclusion false, but the premises
provide more support for the conclusion than those in the previous argument because the
properties Bob and Bill share are more relevant to being interested in Philosophy.
Another criterion for strong analogical arguments is that there are no relevant
dissimilarities. If Bob is tall and Bill is short, that dissimilarity does not weaken the
analogical argument. However, if Bill's parents are physicians and Bill does volunteer
work in hospitals and takes biological science courses, while Bob does not share any of
these characteristics, then this dissimilarity weakens the argument. Note again, that to

make these evaluations of the logical strength of analogical arguments we have to have
knowledge of the subject matter of the argument. This is unlike deductive arguments
where we can determine validity simply by the structure of the argument. Evaluating the
above arguments we had to appeal to our beliefs about sorts of activities a Philosophy
major is likely to engage in, and we assumed some particular facts about Bob and Bill to
show a dissimilarity that weakened the argument. If the subject matter of an analogical
argument is in a area about which we are ignorant, we will not be able to do much to
evaluate the strength of the argument. If we are not familiar with the persons or objects
specified in the argument, we will not be able to find specific dissimilarities. However,
we will be able to say in some cases that if the objects in question were dissimilar in a
particular relevant respect, that this would weaken the argument.
Example
P1. Jones is a Republican, owns a small business, and supports tax cuts
P2. Smith is a Republican and owns a small business
C. Most likely, Smith will support a tax cut.
Based on our general knowledge we can say that the similarities between Jones and
Smith are relevant to support of tax breaks. We don't know Jones and Smith so we can't
identify a relevant dissimilarity. However, we may believe that a person's age and wealth
are relevant to support for tax cuts, e.g. a person who is a senior citizen and not wealthy
is less likely to support tax breaks, If that is so, and if we know that Jones is rich and
young and Smith is old and not rich, then that would be a relevant dissimilarity.

Example
In the nineteenth century it was frequently argued by analogy that there must be life on
Mars.
The planet Mars posses an atmosphere with clouds and mists resembling our own;
it has seas distinguished from the land by a greenish color, and polar regions
covered with snow. the red color of the planet seems to be due to the atmosphere,
like the red color of our sunrises and sunsets. So much is similar in the surface of
Mars and the surface of the earth, that we readily agree that there must be
inhabitants there as well.
Prior to twentieth century astronomical instruments and exploration of Mars via satellites
and landings, knowledge of Mars was limited to what could be seen by the naked eye and
by telescope. So this argument was persuasive. Today we know that the atmosphere of
Mars will not support inhabitants that are any thing like us. We have discovered relevant
dissimilarities.
8.5. Non Argument Uses of Analogy.
The best way to explain something to a person who has yet to understand it is to make a
comparison with something that the person is familiar with. Explanatory analogies are
frequently used to explain science to lay persons.
Carbon is gregarious stuff; the carbon atom has an outer shell with four
electrons available for making shared electron pairs - or covalent bonds - four
hands so to speak, to clasp its neighbor - where oxygen, say, has but two and
hydrogen only one.

It is not always easy to determine whether an analogy is an explanation or an argument.
For the average user, trying to understand the workings of a computer is like trying
to understand what your nerves and muscles are doing while you run.
This could be seen as an explanation of why it is difficult, if not impossible, to use a
computer and simultaneously try to understand its workings, or taken as an argument that
just as it is ridiculous for us to try to understand what our nerves and muscles are doing
while we are running, it is ridiculous for us to try to understand what a computer is doing
while we use it.
8.6. Explanation and Abduction
An argument is an attempt to justify a statement, i.e. show that it is true. Suppose Jones
says to Smith that Smith was late for work, and Smith protests that he was not. Jones
might then say, "I was in my office at 8:00 and didn't see you in your office, further,
when I looked out my window at 8:30 I saw you coming in the door." Jones is providing
reasons why it is true that Smith was late for work. Jones is presenting premises to
support the conclusion that Smith was late.
P1. Smith was not in his office at 8:00
P2. Smith came in the door at 8:30
P3. Starting time is 8:00
C. Smith was late
Now suppose that Smith says. "OK. I was late, but it wasn't my fault. There was an
accident on Vine Street and it held up traffic for 20 minutes." Smith is not giving an

argument to prove that he was not late, he admits that he was. He is now giving an an
explanation of why he was late.
Smith's explanation has the following form:
P4. There was an accident on Vine Street
P5. Traffic was not moving
P6. I was held up for 20 minutes
C. I was late for work
Both inferences support the truth of the same conclusion, viz, that Smith was late for
work. There is an important difference: Jones's argument is an inference from premises to
conclusion. Jones's argument is designed to prove a matter on which he and Smith
disagreed. When Smith's finally agrees that he was late he is providing an explanation of
a matter not in dispute. An explanation begins with a statement known to be true, and
provides statements to show why is it true. To give an explanation is to reason from the
fact to be explained to some statements that provide the explanation. Jones' initial
argument is a deduction; it reasons from premises to a conclusion. Smith's explanation is
abduction, it reasons from the conclusion to the premises. It is called an abduction
because it is reasoning "up" to premises rather than "down" to a conclusion.
There can be alternative explanations for a particular fact. Suppose again that Smith is
late for work. Jones wonders why, for Smith is nearly always on time. Jones could come
up with several explanations: a traffic accident held him up; his car broke down; his
alarm clock failed; he is sick, etc. Each one of these explanations can be constructed as
an argument in which the premises support the conclusion. This shows that the logical

strength of the argument from the statements that explain to the statement of the fact that
needs explaining is not the only criterion for a good explanation.
Another criterion is that the statements offered as an explanation are true. Jones could
call the police and find out if there was an accident on the streets Smith drives to work. If
there was not, this explanation can be rejected. Jones might also cast doubt on the truth of
this explanation by observing that other workers drive to work on the same route as
Smith, and they weren't late. Another criterion for a good explanation is that is complete,
i.e. that it explain all aspects of what needs explanation. Smith's explanation was that the
accident held up traffic for 20 minutes and suppose that this confirmed by the police.
This explains why Smith was late, but it doesn't explain why he was 30 minutes late.
Explaining why things in the world are the way they are is one of the tasks of science.
Scientists collect facts about the world; in addition they formulate general laws and
theories to explain why things are the way they are. Suppose we put an ice cube in a glass
and then fill the glass to the brim with water; the ice cube floats on the water and part of
it will stick above the water level. When the ice melts, will the water level rise and
overflow, will it remain the same, or will it go down? Suppose we try this a few times
and each time the water level stays the same. Why does this happen. We want an
explanation. The explanation is given by the law of buoyancy.
An object in water is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the water it
displaces.
This implies that if we put an object in water it will sink until it displaces a volume of
water that is equal in weight to the weight of the object. The ice cube is frozen water;
when it melts it will fill in the volume it displaced and the level will remain the same
because the volume of water in the glass does not increase.

The structure of a common type of scientific explanation is this:
General laws
Initial conditions
Fact explained
In the case of the ice cube the pattern is:
General law of buoyancy
Ice cube floating in a filled glass of water
The level of water remains the same when cube melts
Among the reasons this is a good explanation is that the general law of buoyancy can be
used to predict other phenomena. It will explain why a one cubic foot block of Styrofoam
floats higher in the water than a one cubic foot block of wood. One cubic foot of
Styrofoam weighs one pound; one cubic foot of wood weighs, say, 25 pounds. The
Styrofoam will sink until it displaces an amount of water equal to one pound. The wood
block will sink until is displace an amount of water equal to 25 pounds. The volume of
water for 25 pounds is greater than the volume for one pound, so the Styrofoam will float
higher in the water.
Another criterion for a good explanation is that the statements that explain a fact do not
imply something that is not true. For example, suppose a student receives a poor grade on
an essay and the student knows that her view disagrees with that of the professor. The
student explains the poor grade with the claim that the professor give poor grades to
students who disagree with his view. The structure of the explanation is:
P1. If an essay disagrees with Prof. Bloogs' views then he will give it a poor grade
P2. Susan's essay disagrees with Professor Bloogs' views
C. Susan received a poor grade

The explanation in P1 can be tested by predicting the grades of other students. If James'
essay disagrees with Professor Bloogs views then it should have received a poor grade.
P1. If an essay disagrees with Prof. Bloogs' views then he will give it a poor grade
P2. James' essay disagrees with Professor Bloogs' views
C. James' received a poor grade
Suppose James essay did disagree with Professor Bloogs' view and it received a good
grade. In that case C, above is false, and so P1 must be false. Susan might also explain
Professor Bloogs bias by claiming that if an essay agrees with his view it will receive a
good grade. This predicts that if Bill received a good grade then his essay must have
agreed with Professor Bloogs view. But if Bill has a poor grade and his essay agrees with
Bloogs view, then the explanation of bias is not confirmed.
Suppose Simmons has a cold and explains this by stating that he went out of doors on a
cold and rainy day without a coat. The general statement explaining Simmons' cold is
that exposure to cold and rain causes colds. This explanation could be tested by seeing
how well it predicts the occurrence of colds in those who go out in a cold rain without a
coat. There is another way to evaluate the explanation - ask whether the general
statement is consistent with other beliefs we have about colds. If we believe with modern
medicine that a cold is an infection of the upper respiratory system, then we would say
that a cold is the result of exposure to germs - to a bacteria or virus. The claim that colds
are caused by exposure to cold rain is not consistent with the claim that colds are caused
by exposure to germs. We have to give up one or the other of these claims, or we have to
combine the two explanations in a consistent way. We might say that germs are
necessary for the occurrence of an upper respiratory infection and add that exposure to a

cold rain weakens the immune system and makes it more likely that exposure to germs
will lead to a cold.
In summary, the criteria for good explanation are:
1. Logical strength, i.e. the explanatory statements must strongly support the
statement of the fact to be explained;
2. Truth of the explanatory statements;
3. Breadth of the explanation - it can explain other related phenomena
4. the explanatory statements predictions are not disconfirmed and there are
confirming instances beyond the statement initially calling for explanation;
5. the explanatory statements are consistent with our well founded beliefs.
The examples of explanation used so far have been from everyday life and from science.
Philosophers also use explanation. It is often claimed that a student of philosophy must
identify and evaluate the arguments of philosophy, i.e. find the premises and conclusions
and determine if the arguments hare logically strong and if the premises are true. The
methods of deductive arguments are then the proper approach to philosophy texts. Many
philosophical arguments are best understood as deductive arguments. But philosophers
also use abduction. The philosophical theses they put forward are premises in an
explanation of a phenomena.
8.7. Adductive Reasoning in Ethics
In scientific explanation a premise is adduced to explain a known phenomenon and to
then predict other phenomena. Issues in ethics present themselves for justification. "Was
it right for Jones to lie to Smith?" "Are experiments on non-human animals ethical?"
"Should an American citizen have a government protected right to health care?" Answers

to these sorts of questions are frequently presented by arguing from cases where the
answer is clear. This is sometimes interpreted as reasoning by analogy.
It is wrong for a doctor to lie to a person about a test result, even if the doctor
thinks that lying is in the patient's best interest. We know this because even doctors
would agree that it would be wrong for a financial adviser to lie to them about a
potential investment, even if the financial adviser thinks that this lie is in the
doctor's best interest.
The analogical interpretation would be:
P1. A financial adviser lies to a dr. when he thinks doing so is in the doctor's best
interest.
P2. A doctor lies to a patient when she thinks doing so is in the patient's best interest
P3. The financial adviser is morally wrong.
C. The doctor is morally wrong.
A better interpretation of the argument is that it abduces a general rule about lying from
the example of the financial adviser and then uses this general rule to apply to the case of
the doctor. The argument starts from the view that we would all agree that it is wrong for
a financial adviser to lie to a doctor, or any customer, on the ground that the financial
adviser believes lying is in the interest of the customer. There is an implicit general rule
that supports this view - that professionals should tell clients the truth and allow them to
determine what is in their best interest. Once this general rule is abduced from the case of
the financial adviser, it can be applied to the case of the doctor and show that it is wrong
for doctors to lie to patients.

C1. It is wrong for a financial adviser to lie to a client when he believes it is the
best interest of the client
P1. Professionals should tell clients the truth and allow them to determine what is
in their best interest.
C2. It is wrong for a doctor to lie to a patient when she believes it is in the best
interest of the patient.
C1. is written above P1 to show that P1 is adduced from C1, and C2 is written below P1
to show that it is deduced from P1.
This is simple presentation of the issue of professionals lying to clients. Situations
involving lying are usually more complicated. One can ask about the competence of the
doctor's patient and of the adviser's client. If they are deluded in some significant way,
they may choose to do something that they would not choose if they were competent.
This does not totally undercut the general rule, rather it requires a more precise
formulation.
Professionals should tell clients the truth and allow them to determine what is in
their best interest, except when the client is not competent and because of this
likely to choose a course of action that they would not choose if competent.
There may be other circumstances where lying to a patient, or a client, is justifiable.
Ethical analysis and argument frequently proceeds from the examination of many and
divers’ cases in order to abduct the most plausible general rules of ethical conduct.

Here is an abdicative argument that is also a reductio ad absurdum argument.
A full grown cat is capable of much more than a human infant. The cat has a sense
of its own interests, and is capable of receiving and displaying affection. Further, it
engages in play and activities like hunting that show that its level of intelligence is
as great, if not greater than, that of an infant. Hence, if we consider painful,
destructive experiments performed on cats to be morally legitimate then we must
also accept the legitimacy of similar experiments on human infants.
This argument starts from what the author believes is a widely accepted view - that it is
morally permissible to do painful experiments on cats. He abduces a general rule from
this and some facts about the behavior and capacities of cats, and then applies it to human
infants.
P1. It is morally permissible to do painful experiments on beings who have a sense
of their own interests, display affection, and have intelligence.
P2. An human infant is not more capable of these behaviors than a full grown cat.
C. It is morally permissible to do painful experiments on a human infant.
This conclusion is one that nearly everyone would reject as morally outrageous. Since the
argument is valid, one or other of the premises must be rejected. The author believes that
only P1 can be rejected since P2 is obviously true. But without P1, there is no
justification for painful experiments on cats, and we should find it just as outrageous as
painful experiments on human infants.
Note the similarity between the structure of this argument and of explanations in science.
A particular statement of fact is explained by subsuming it under a general law which
explains the statement. The explanation can be rejected if we can deduce from it a

prediction that turns out false. In this ethical argument the practice of painful experiments
on cats was subsumed under a general ethical rule which justifies the practice. The
general rule was rejected by showing that one can deduce from it a statement of what is
permissible that we would all reject.
Much more could be said about this argument. For example, there may be alternative
general rules that justify painful experiments on cats that would not justify painful
experiments on human infants.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are
the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people,
according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of
essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice
and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, for they are regarded as
established pillars of society and culture,[2]and the history of social conflicts can be
found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of
laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived".
Definitional
Street protest scene; people deliberately lying down on a busy city street, surrounded by
onlookers and police.
Rights are widely regarded as the basis of law, but what if laws are bad? Some theorists
suggest civil disobedience is, itself, a right, and it was advocated by thinkers such as
Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It
has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and
sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond
having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.
One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to
consider different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights:
A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone
call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the
law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death,
to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity;
a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left
alone, to go to hell in one's own way. ”
There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights, such as:
Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states'
rights, the rights of people? What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains
to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent;
property rights, bodily rights. Why the right holder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights
spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary
rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be affected by the right
holder’s actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the
waivable right that a promise be kept.”
There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic
community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic,
political science, and religion.

Natural versus painting of a dark gray sky with trees and water, and a human image,
flying, with arms outstretched according to some views, certain rights derive from deities
or nature.
Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-
made", as in rights deriving from human nature or from the edicts of a god. They are
universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific
society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For
example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes
called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by
legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself,
is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right
to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are
culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have
meaning.
Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a
measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses
throughout history. For example, Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the
essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights; whereas Thomas Aquinas
held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not
properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights.
Claim versus liberty
Picture of a deed which has hand-written writing on a yellowed piece of paper with three
gold tassels at the bottom

A deed is an example of a claim right in the sense that it asserts a right to own land. This
particular deed dates back to 1273.
A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder.
Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such
as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to
that service or product (another term is thing in action).[3] In logic, this idea can be
expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a
duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer
must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from
acting. For example, many jurisdictions recognize broad claim rights to things like "life,
liberty, and property"; these rights impose an obligation upon others not to assault or
restrain a person, or use their property, without the claim-holder's permission. Likewise,
in jurisdictions where social welfare services are provided, citizens have legal claim
rights to be provided with those services.
A liberty right or privilege, in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the right-
holder to do something, and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do
anything. This can be expressed in logic as: "Person A has a privilege to do something if
and only if A has no duty not to do that something." For example, if a person has a legal
liberty right to free speech, that merely means that it is not legally forbidden for them to
speak freely: it does not mean that anyone has to help enable their speech, or to listen to
their speech; or even, per se, refrain from stopping them from speaking, though other
rights, such as the claim right to be free from assault, may severely limit what others can
do to stop them.

Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right
permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right
forbidding him from doing so. Likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone
else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to
walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no
obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an
obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which
those other people have a claim right. So a person's liberty right of walking extends
precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom.
Positive versus negative
In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific
service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights.
However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called
negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing. For example, in some countries,
e.g. the United States, citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative
right to not vote; people can choose not to vote in a given election without punishment.
In other countries, e.g. Australia, however, citizens have a positive right to vote but they
don't have a negative right to not vote, since voting is compulsory. Accordingly:
Positive rights are permissions to do things, or entitlements to be done unto. One
example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare."
Negative rights are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often
the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement
to non-interference such as a right against being assaulted.

Though similarly named, positive and negative rights should not be confused with active
rights (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and passive rights (which
encompass "claims" and "immunities").
Individual versus group
The general concept of rights is that they are possessed by individuals in the sense that
they are permissions and entitlements to do things which other persons, or which
governments or authorities, can not infringe. This is the understanding of people such as
the author Ayn Rand who argued that only individuals have rights, according to her
philosophy known as Objectivism.[5] However, others have argued that there are
situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights, or group rights.
Accordingly:
Individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group
membership or lack thereof.
Soldiers lined up in a row, with green caps, carrying rifles
Do groups have rights? Some argue that when soldiers bond in combat, the group
becomes like an organism in itself and has rights which trump the rights of any individual
soldier.
Group rights have been argued to exist when a group is seen as more than a mere
composite or assembly of separate individuals but an entity in its own right. In other
words, it's possible to see a group as a distinct being in and of itself; it's akin to an
enlarged individual, a corporate body, which has a distinct will and power of action and
can be thought of as having rights. For example, a platoon of soldiers in combat can be
thought of as a distinct group, since individual members are willing to risk their lives for
the survival of the group, and therefore the group can be conceived as having a "right"

which is superior to that of any individual member; for example, a soldier who disobeys
an officer can be punished, perhaps even killed, for a breach of obedience. But there is
another sense of group rights in which people who are members of a group can be
thought of as having specific individual rights because of their membership in a group. In
this sense, the set of rights which individuals-as-group-members have is expanded
because of their membership in a group. For example, workers who are members of a
group such as a labor union can be thought of as having expanded individual rights
because of their membership in the labor union, such as the rights to specific working
conditions or wages. As expected, there is sometimes considerable disagreement about
what exactly is meant by the term "group" as well as by the term "group rights."
There can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which
group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For
example, individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-
negotiated wage, but are prevented from making further requests; in a so-called closed
shop which has a union security agreement, only the union has a right to decide matters
for the individual union members such as wage rates. So, do the supposed "individual
rights" of the workers prevail about the proper wage? Or do the "group rights" of the
union regarding the proper wage prevail? Clearly this is a source of tension.
The Austrian School of Economics holds that only individuals think, feel, and act
whether or not members of any abstract group. The society should thus according to
economists of the school be analyzed starting from the individual. This methodology is
called methodological individualism and is used by the economists to justify individual
rights.

Other senses
Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family
resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction
between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, between which
the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another
conception of rights groups them into three generations. These distinctions have much
overlap with that between negative and positive rights, as well as between individual
rights and group rights, but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.
Logical Fallacies Handlist:
Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually
flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making
the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid
them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others'
arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-
fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate. For extra impact, learn both the Latin terms
and the English equivalents. You can click here to download a PDF version of this
material.
In general, one useful way to organize fallacies is by category. We have below fallacies
of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission. We
will discuss each type in turn. The last point to discuss is Occam's Razor.
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are
not relevant to the argument at hand.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy):
This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make
the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or

rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4,
an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim
doesn't change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with
the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however.
The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial, professional, and so
on. Example: "Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not
remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down
costs." While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince
him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or
community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent
so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the
politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if
they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the
teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy, however, to assert
that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!
Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be
untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. "That car can't possibly
be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or, "Why should I listen to her argument? She
comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes." Or, "Ha! I'm not
reading that book. It was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are
hillbillies and rednecks!" This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of
argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below.
Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also
called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument,
rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal

character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument
itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if it is stated by criminals, congressmen,
or pastors. There are two subcategories:
1. Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or
dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists,
capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists,
feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from
irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic
concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-
intellectual would argue otherwise.
2. Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument
because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman,
suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be
incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is
a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a
circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the
truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional
evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy
in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you
simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.
Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to
popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than
building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and
the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark
Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

(1) Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum
asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular
course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be
followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers
purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong.
IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not
prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the
best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but
that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it!
Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical
fallacy.
(2) Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag." This argument asserts that a
certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who
disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a
certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like
Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism,
etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will
exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of
ours. This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.
(3) Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populumdoesn’t assert “everybody is
doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true
intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The
implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is
not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument
is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the
argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add
a fourth category, "Covering Oneself in the Cross." This argument asserts that a certain
political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian,"
and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. (It
is similar to the patriotic approachexcept it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of
patriotism.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near
election time, many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden
financial/political agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a
pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in
mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the
appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should
beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it.
Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem; aka Argumentum Ad
Antiquitatem): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people
have always believed it or done it. For example, "We know the earth is flat because
generations have thought that for centuries!" Alternatively, the appeal to tradition might
conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the
future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty
years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common
sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better
than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances

changing from the way they were thirty years ago? Has new evidence emerged that might
throw that long-standing policy into doubt?
Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument
from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous
person or a source that may not be reliable or who might not know anything about the
topic. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a
famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s
expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle
an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on
biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is
fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A
subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one
who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or
personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To
determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat
presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering
the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the owners of the sludge-
mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both
viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source
that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased
arguments. As Upton Sinclair once stated, "It's difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sinclair is pointing
out that even a knowledgeable authority might not be entirely rational on a topic when he
has economic incentives that bias his thinking.

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from
pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate.
While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some
abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept
what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. For example, in the 1880s,
prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of
murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a "not-guilty" plea for on the
grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the
court was not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the
argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.
Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false
because the implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The
medical tests show that Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true
because then she would die! I refuse to believe it!” The argument is illogical because
truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much we like or dislike the
consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how negative
that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.
Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be
false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For
instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about
how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au
contraire that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world — so
airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how
they work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.

COMPONENT FALLACIES
Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic
terms that fail to overlap.
Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used
interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their
argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of
begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is
initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a
particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from
the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on
in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something
nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing.
However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--
they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument,
skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most
important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex
question (see below).
Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using
this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ
sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise
and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by
merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic

(London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on
the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the
community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing
his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if
the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in
proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different
words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more
complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of
reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible
says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If
we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:
The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of
debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument
relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven.
Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in
this example!
Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,”
"Converse Accident"): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few
samples to prove a point. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology
101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology
101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot
normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive
reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman,
and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many
lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail

Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b)
if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her
three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only
exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author
commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.
One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs
when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render
the general rule inapplicable. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an exception
to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend
when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in
his right mind. Ought I to give the weapons to back to him? No one would say that I
ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What is true in general may not be true
universally and without qualification. So remember, generalizations are bad. Every single
last one, except of course, for those that are not.
Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. Suppose an
individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last
Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the women who took the driving
test failed. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set
forth. However, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less
clear-cut. Incidentally, the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who
cannot perceive misleading statistics. He does a statistical study of when employees call
in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. He becomes furious to
learn that 40% of office "sick-days" occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)--just in
time to create a three-day weekend. Suspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers.
The irony, of course, is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week, so the

numbers are completely average. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers
complain that "50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized
tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude." Of course they do! The very nature of an
average implies that!
False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist.
There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. The two most common
include these types:
(1) Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause"): A general, catch-
all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.
(2) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this, therefore because of this"):
This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the
first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later
one. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. It is the honest writer's job to
establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. Example: "A
black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart-attack.
Because the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later." This
is how superstitions begin.
The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or
listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--
to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. These may be potential
suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and
subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes.
Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life, suffered from a chemical
imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions.

Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or
circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later. For more information,
see correlation and causation.
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician
adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove
a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is
under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable.
Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular
measure. The question really isn't, "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question
really is, "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?"
This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared
assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then
spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue.
It's similar to begging the question, above.
One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the "Red Herring." A red herring
is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question
at issue to some side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held accountable
for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far
worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are
many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police
should be chasing them, not harass a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse
criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the
speaker drive recklessly, and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for
"And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because
the person presenting the advice doesn't consistently follow it herself. For instance,
"Susan the yoga instructor claims that a low-fat diet and exercise are good for you--but I
saw her last week pigging out on oreos, so her argument must be a load of hogwash." Or,
"Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias
himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?" Or "Thomas Jefferson made many
arguments about equality and liberty for all Americans, but he himself kept slaves, so we
can dismiss any thoughts he had on those topics."
Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame
attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the
arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The
name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false
opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before
his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-
stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like
caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and
then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man
argument.
For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The
opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers
during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide
medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent
believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of
hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the

second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement
about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more
easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-
argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.
Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that
does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer
leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought
through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to
any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to
syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and
ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving
up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up
nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to
outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two
missing here.
The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The Camel's Nose Fallacy") is a non
sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or
third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will
cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called "the Camel's
Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his
tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into
the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and
then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not
allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is
in, the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and

thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, "If we allow the
government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to
infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our
mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental
agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in
the United States." Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet
that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more
than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the
person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop
herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find
yourself using more and more logical fallacies.
Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the Black-and-White Fallacy," "Excluded Middle,"
"False Dilemma," or "False Dichotomy"): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an
argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when
actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple. This fallacy most frequently
appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the
American way of life will collapse.” "We go to war with Canada, or else Canada will
eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States." "Either you drink
Burpsy Cola, or you will have no friends and no social life." Either you must avoid
either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.
Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing
deductively and inductively. For example, “education is like cake; a small amount tastes
sweet, but eats too much and your teeth will rot out. Likewise, more than two years of
education is bad for a student.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader
thinks that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy

wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should
ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.
Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which
the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap.
Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded. All snakes are reptiles.
All snakes are cold-blooded.” In the first example, the middle term “snakes” fits in the
categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded.” (2) “All snails are cold-
blooded. All snakes are cold-blooded. All snails are snakes.” In the second example, the
middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-
blooded” and “snails.” Sometimes, equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed
middle term.
Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in
such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do
anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes
a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise
establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable
of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-
versa.
Closely related is the fallacy of Special Pleading, in which the writer creates a universal
principle, and then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at
hand. For instance, “Everything must have a source or creator. Therefore God must exist
and he must have created the world. What? Who created God? Well, God is eternal and
unchanging--He has no source or creator.” In such an assertion, God must have His own
source or creator, or else the universal principle of everything having a source or creator
must be set aside—the person making the argument can’t have it both ways.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases,
the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less
subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.
Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original
premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same
word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of
equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say
that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end
means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's
second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very
different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly, below.
Amphiboly (from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to
equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement
may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and
false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but
the conclusion uses the secondary "false" interpretation, we have the fallacy of
amphiboly on our hands. In the command, "Save soap and waste paper," the amphibolous
use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb
or as an adjective.
Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the
whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument
might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire
machine also must be lightweight. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see

above), but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to
create a categorical generalization. Also compare it with Division (see below).
Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive
reasoning. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be
true of individual parts. Such an argument notes that, "Microtech is a company with great
influence in the California legislature. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. He must have
great influence in the California legislature." This is not necessarily true. Egbert might
work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech--
positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Another fallacy of
division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole:
"Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. Susan Jones is a worker
at Sunsurf. She must be an environmentally minded individual." (Perhaps she is
motivated by money alone?)
Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred
North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual
thing represented by that word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process
as equivalent to a concrete object or thing. In the first case, we might imagine a reformer
trying to eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or certain
sexual acts in publications. The problem is that eliminating the words for these deeds is
not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves. In the second case, we might imagine a
person or declaring “a war on poverty.” In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that
“war” implies a concrete struggle with another concrete entity which can surrender or be
exterminated. “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or sign peace
treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc. Reification of the concept merely muddles the

issue of what policies to follow and leads to sloppy thinking about the best way to handle
a problem. It is closely related to and overlaps with faulty analogy and equivocation.
FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out
necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information.
Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring
examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case.
This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies
deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. Contrast it with the straw man
argument.
‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy: Attempting to stack the deck specifically by defining
terms in such a narrow or unrealistic manner as to exclude or omit relevant examples
from a sample. For instance, suppose speaker #1 asserts, “The Scottish national character
is brave and patriotic. No Scottish soldier has ever fled the field of battle in the face of
the enemy.” Speaker #2 objects, “Ah, but what about Lucas MacDurgan? He fled from
German troops in World War I.” Speaker #1 retorts, “Well, obviously he doesn’t count as
a true Scotsman because he did not live up to Scottish ideals, thus he forfeited his
Scottish identity.” By this fallacious reasoning, any individual who would serve as
evidence contradicting the first speaker’s assertion is conveniently and automatically
dismissed from consideration. We commonly see this fallacy when a company asserts
that it cannot be blamed for one of its particularly unsafe or shoddy products because that
particular one doesn’t live up to its normally high standards, and thus shouldn’t “count”
against its fine reputation. Likewise, defenders of Christianity as a positive historical
influence in their zeal might argue the atrocities of the eight Crusades do not “count” in
an argument because the Crusaders weren’t living up to Christian ideals, and thus aren’t

really Christians, etc. So, remember this fallacy. Philosophers and logicians never use it,
and anyone who does use it by definition is not really a philosopher or logician.
Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position
is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably
with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above).
For instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the Newtonian theory of
mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, Einstein’s theory of relativity must be
true. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and Einstein’s theory
is flawed. Perhaps they are all wrong. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not
necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than
disproving your opponent's assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your
argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one. Keeping this mind, students should
remember that arguments from the negative are bad, arguments from the positive must
automatically be good.
Appeal to a Lack of Evidence(Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument
from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that,
since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An
example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has
been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because
no competing argument has yet revealed itself.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove
something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if
hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an
individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have
learned about relativity or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to

college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such
hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other
individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic
art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply
useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common
example is the idea that one "owes" her success to another individual who taught her. For
instance, "You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn't taught you how to
recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's for
minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a
lawyer." Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies
elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.
Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or
statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence
or discussion. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above), since it also
presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. For instance, if I were to
ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you
havebeen taking drugs. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no
answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this
case the unstated question is, “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by, “If you
have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now?” In cross-examination,
a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, “Where did you hide the evidence?” or "when did
you stop beating your wife?" The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question
is to analyze its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question
first, the explicit question may dissolve.

Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. A student might write, “Why
is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The
rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. However, an observant reader
may disagree, recognizing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. That
question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient
in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true
without discussion.

CHAPTER 4
ETHICS
Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is concerned with questions of how people ought to act, and
the search for a definition of right conduct (identified as the one causing the greatest
good) and the good life (in the sense of a life worth living or a life that is satisfying or
happy).
The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek "ethos" (meaning "custom" or "habit").
Ethics differs from morals and morality in that ethics denotes the theory of right action
and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. Ethics is not limited to specific
acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviours,
a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).
It asks questions like "How should people act?" (Normative or Prescriptive Ethics),
"What do people think is right?" (Descriptive Ethics), "How do we take moral knowledge
and put it into practice?" (Applied Ethics), and "What does 'right' even mean?" (Meta-
Ethics). See below for more discussion of these categories.
Ancient Greek Ethics
Socrates, as recorded in Plato's dialogues, is customarily regarded as the father of
Western ethics. He asserted that people will naturally do what is good provided that they
know what is right, and that evil or bad actions are purely the result of ignorance: "There
is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance". He equated knowledge and
wisdom with self-awareness (meaning to be aware of every fact relevant to a person's
existence) and virtue and happiness. So, in essence, he considered self-knowledge and
self-awareness to be the essential good, because the truly wise (i.e. self-aware) person
will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.

According to Aristotle, "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a person acts in
accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full potential, that they will do
good and therefore be content in life. He held that self-realization (the awareness of one's
nature and the development of one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the
ultimate goal, all other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end.
He encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and immoral, (e.g.
courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness), and
held that Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate
virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right
time to the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something of a
tall order.
Cynicism is an ancient doctrine best exemplified by the Greek philosopher Diogenes of
Sinope, who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens. He taught that a life lived according
to Nature was better than one that conformed to convention, and that a simple life is
essential to virtue and happiness. As a moral teacher, Diogenes emphasized detachment
from many of those things conventionally considered "good".
Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
This may range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and
expense to others and with no thought for the future (Cyrenaic Hedonism), to those who
believe that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most
people. Somewhere in the middle of this continuum, Epicureanism observed that
indiscriminate indulgence sometimes results in negative consequences, such as pain and
fear, which are to be avoided.

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment, serenity
and peace of mind, which can be achieved by self-mastery over one's desires and
emotions, and freedom from material attachments. In particular, sex and sexual desire are
to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind.
According to Epictetus, difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather
embraced as spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit.
Pyrrho, the founding figure of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, taught that one cannot rationally
decide between what is good and what is bad although, generally speaking, self-interest
is the primary motive of human behaviour, and he was disinclined to rely upon sincerity,
virtue or Altruism as motivations.
Humanism, with its emphasis on the dignity and worth of all people and their ability to
determine right and wrong purely by appeal to universal human qualities (especially
rationality), can be traced back to Thales, Xenophanes of Colophon (570 - 480 B.C.),
Anaxagoras, Pericles (c. 495 - 429 B.C.), Protagoras, Democritus and the historian
Thucydides (c. 460 - 375 B.C.). These early Greek thinkers were all instrumental in the
move away from a spiritual morality based on the supernatural, and the development of a
more humanistic freethought (the view that beliefs should be formed on the basis of
science and logic, and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition or dogma).
Normative Ethics
Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics) is the branch of ethics concerned with
establishing how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good
or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. It attempts to develop a set of rules
governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action.

Normative ethical theories are usually split into three main categories: Consequentialism,
Deontology and Virtue Ethics:
Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) argues that the morality of an action is
contingent on the action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that
produces a good outcome or consequence. Consequentialist theories must consider
questions like "What sort of consequences count as good consequences?", "Who is the
primary beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences judged and who
judges them?"
Some consequentialist theories include:
Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the
greatest number of people ("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of pleasure
and the minimization of pain). The origins of Utilitarianism can be traced back as far as
the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but its full formulation is usually credited to Jeremy
Betham, with John Stuart Mill as its foremost proponent.
Hedonism, which is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of
mankind, and that individuals should strive to maximise their own total pleasure (net of
any pain or suffering). Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to
maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than
pleasure).
Egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. Thus,
Egoism may license actions which are good for the individual, but detrimental to the
general welfare. Individual Egoism holds that all people should do whatever benefits him
or herself. Personal Egoism holds that each person should act in his own self-interest, but
makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do. Universal Egoism holds that
everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.

Asceticism, which is, in some ways, the opposite of Egoism in that it describes a life
characterized by abstinence from egoistic pleasures especially to achieve a spiritual goal.
Altruism, which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best
consequences for everyone except for himself, according to Auguste Comte's dictum,
"Live for others". Thus, individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve or benefit
others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self-interest.
Rule Consequentialism, which is a theory (sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile
Consequentialism and Deontology), that moral behaviour involves following certain
rules, but that those rules should be chosen based on the consequences that the selection
of those rules have.
Negative Consequentialism, which focuses on minimizing bad consequences rather than
promoting good consequences. This may actually require active intervention (to prevent
harm from being done), or may only require passive avoidance of bad outcomes.
Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions
themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those
actions. It argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties
and other's rights (the Greek 'deon' means 'obligation' or 'duty').
Some deontological theories include:
Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is
right if God has decreed that it is right, and that an act is obligatory if and only if (and
because) it is commanded by God. Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands,
and the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a
duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. William of

Ockham, René Descartes and the 18th Century Calvinists all accepted versions of this
moral theory.
Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke),
which holds that humans have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights
that are inherent in the nature of ethics, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs).
This eventually developed into what we today call human rights.
Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational
capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in
that he argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act according to duty, and
that it is the motives of the person who carries out the action that make them right or
wrong, not the consequences of the actions. Simply stated, the Categorical Imperative
states that one should only act in such a way that one could want the maxim (or
motivating principle) of one's action to become a universal law, and that one should
always treat people as an end as well as a means to an end.
Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D.
Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be
taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon: beneficence (to
help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc); non-maleficent
(to avoid harming other people); justice (to ensure people get what they deserve); self-
improvement (to improve ourselves); reparation (to recompense someone if you have
acted wrongly towards them); gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us);
promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the
implicit promise to tell the truth). In some circumstances, there may be clashes or
conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may

"trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of
significance.
Contractarian Ethics (or the Moral Theory of Contractarianism) claims that moral
norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. It
holds that moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased, and that
moral rules themselves are a sort of a contract, and therefore only people who understand
and agree to the terms of the contract are bound by it. The theory stems initially from
political Contractarianism and the principle of social contract developed by Thomas
Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, which essentially holds that people give
up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive, or jointly
preserve, social order. Contractualism is a variation on Contractarianism, although based
more on the Kantian ideas that ethics is an essentially interpersonal matter, and that right
and wrong are a matter of whether we can justify the action to other people.
Virtue Ethics, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or
consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits
and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good
life), counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that
a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes, happiness and the
good life.
Eudaimonism is a philosophy originated by Aristotle that defines right action as that
which leads to "well being", and which can be achieved by a lifetime of practising the
virtues in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical wisdom. It was
first advocated by Plato and is particularly associated with Aristotle, and became the
prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval periods. It fell out of
favour in the Early Modern period, but has recently undergone a modern resurgence.

Agent-Based Theories give an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions
about which character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc),
which we can identify by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars.
Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers, and calls for a change in how
we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards the more marginalized virtues
exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-
sacrifice, etc.
Meta-Ethics
Meta-Ethics is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgements, and seeks to
understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgements and how
they may be supported or defended. A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical
theory (see below), does not attempt to evaluate specific choices as being better, worse,
good, bad or evil; rather it tries to define the essential meaning and nature of the problem
being discussed. It concerns itself with second order questions, specifically the semantics,
epistemology and ontology of ethics.
The major meta-ethical views are commonly divided into two camps: Moral Realism and
Moral Anti-Realism:
Moral Realism:
Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) holds that there are objective moral values, so that
evaluative statements are essentially factual claims, which are either true or false, and
that their truth or falsity are independent of our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards
the things being evaluated. It is a cognitivist view in that it holds that ethical sentences
express valid propositions and are therefore truth-apt.

There are two main variants:
Ethical Naturalism
This doctrine holds that there are objective moral properties of which we have empirical
knowledge, but that these properties are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. It
assumes cognitivism (the view that ethical sentences express propositions and can
therefore be true or false), and that the meanings of these ethical sentences can be
expressed as natural properties without the use of ethical terms.
Ethical Non-Naturalism
This doctrine (whose major apologist is G. E. Moore) holds that ethical statements
express propositions (in that sense it is also cognitivist) that cannot be reduced to non-
ethical statements (e.g. "goodness" is indefinable in that it cannot be defined in any other
terms). Moore claimed that a naturalistic fallacy is committed by any attempt to prove a
claim about ethics by appealing to a definition in terms of one or more natural properties
(e.g. "good" cannot be defined interms of "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc).
Ethical Intuitionism is a variant of Ethical Non-Naturalism which claims that we
sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.
Moral Anti-Realism:
Moral Anti-Realism holds that there are no objective moral values, and comes in one of
three forms, depending on whether ethical statements are believed to be subjective claims
(Ethical Subjectivism), not genuine claims at all (Non-Cognitivism) or mistaken
objective claims (Moral Nihilism or Moral Skepticism):
Ethical Subjectivism, which holds that there are no objective moral properties and that
moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the
observers, or that any ethical sentence merely implies an attitude, opinion, personal
preference or feeling held by someone.

There are several different variants:
Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments, personal
preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.
Individualist subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by Protagoras) that there
are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the world
(effectively a form of Egoism).
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is
for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right
for people in different societies and different periods in history.
Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a
hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed)
would have.
Non-Cognitivism, which holds that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because
they do not express genuine propositions, thus implying that moral knowledge is
impossible. Again there are different versions:
Emotivism: the view, defended by A.J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson (1908 - 1979) among
others, that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions, and ethical judgements
are primarily expressions of one's own attitude, although to some extent they are also
imperatives meant to change the attitudes and actions of other listeners.
Prescriptivism (or Universal Prescriptivism): the view, propounded by R.M. Hare (1919 -
2002), that moral statements function as imperatives which are universalizable (i.e.
applicable to everyone in similar circumstances) e.g. "Killing is wrong" really means "Do
not kill!"
Expressivism: the view that the primary function of moral sentences is not to assert any
matter of fact, but rather to express an evaluative attitude toward an object of evaluation.

Therefore, because the function of moral language is non-descriptive, moral sentences do
not have any truth conditions.
Quasi-Realism: the view, developed from Expressivism and defended by Simon
Blackburn (1944 - ), that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims, and
can be appropriately called "true" or "false" even though there are no ethical facts for
them to correspond to. Blackburn argues that ethics cannot be entirely realist, for this
would not allow for phenomena such as the gradual development of ethical positions
over time or in differing cultural traditions.
Projectivism: the view that qualities can be attributed to (or "projected" on) an object as
if those qualities actually belong to it. Projectivism in Ethics (originally proposed by
David Hume and more recently championed by Simon Blackburn) is associated by many
with Moral Relativism, and is considered controversial, even though it was philosophical
orthodoxy throughout much of the 20th Century.
Moral Fictionalism: the view that moral statements should not be taken to be literally
true, but merely a useful fiction. This has led to charges of individuals claiming to hold
attitudes that they do not really have, and therefore are in some way insincere.
Moral Nihilism, which holds that ethical claims are generally false. It holds that there are
no objective values (that nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc.) because there
are no moral truths (e.g. a moral nihilist would say that murder is not wrong, but neither
is it right).
Error Theory is a form of Moral Nihilism which combines Cognitivism (the belief that
moral language consists of truth-apt statements) with Moral Nihilism (the belief that
there are no moral facts).

Moral Skepticism, which holds that no one has any moral knowledge (or the stronger
claim that no one can have any moral knowledge). It is particularly opposed to Moral
Realism (see above) and perhaps its most famous proponent is Friedrich Nietzsche.
An alternative division of meta-ethical views is between:
Moral Absolutism:
The ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be
judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.
The meta-ethical position that there is a universal ethic which applies to all people,
regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing
feature, and all the time.
Moral Relativism:
The position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal
moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal
circumstances.
Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive Ethics is a value-free approach to ethics which examines ethics from the
perspective of observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. It is the
study of people's beliefs about morality, and implies the existence of, rather than
explicitly prescribing, theories of value or of conduct. It is not designed to provide
guidance to people in making moral decisions, nor is it designed to evaluate the
reasonableness of moral norms.
It is more likely to be investigated by those working in the fields of evolutionary biology,
psychology, sociology, history or anthropology, although information that comes from
descriptive ethics is also used in philosophical arguments.

Descriptive Ethics is sometimes referred to as Comparative Ethics because so much
activity can involve comparing ethical systems: comparing the ethics of the past to the
present; comparing the ethics of one society to another; and comparing the ethics which
people claim to follow with the actual rules of conduct which do describe their actions.
Applied Ethics
Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-
life situations. Strict, principle-based ethical approaches often result in solutions to
specific problems that are not universally acceptable or impossible to implement. Applied
Ethics is much more ready to include the insights of psychology, sociology and other
relevant areas of knowledge in its deliberations. It is used in determining public policy.
The following would be questions of Applied Ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?",
"Is euthanasia immoral?", "Is affirmative action right or wrong?", "What are human
rights, and how do we determine them?" and "Do animals have rights as well?"
Some topics falling within the discipline include:
Medical Ethics: the study of moral values and judgements as they apply to medicine.
Historically, Western medical ethics may be traced to guidelines on the duty of
physicians in antiquity, such as the Hippocratic Oath (at its simplest, "to practice and
prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid
harming them"), and early rabbinic, Muslim and Christian teachings. Six of the values
that commonly apply to medical ethics discussions are: Beneficence (a practitioner
should act in the best interest of the patient), Non-maleficence ("first, do no harm"),
Autonomy (the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment), Justice
(concerning the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what
treatment), Dignity (both the patient and the practitioner have the right to dignity),
Honesty (truthfulness and respect for the concept of informed consent).

Bioethics: concerns the ethical controversies brought about by advances in biology and
medicine. Public attention was drawn to these questions by abuses of human subjects in
biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World War, but with recent
advances in bio-technology, bioethics has become a fast-growing academic and
professional area of inquiry. Issues include consideration of cloning, stem cell research,
transplant trade, genetically modified food, human genetic engineering, genomics,
infertility treatment, etc, etc
Legal Ethics: an ethical code governing the conduct of people engaged in the practice of
law. Model rules usually address the client-lawyer relationship, duties of a lawyer as
advocate in adversary proceedings, dealings with persons other than clients, law firms
and associations, public service, advertising and maintaining the integrity of the
profession. Respect of client confidences, candour toward the tribunal, truthfulness in
statements to others, and professional independence are some of the defining features of
legal ethics.
Business Ethics: examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise
in a business environment. This includes Corporate Social Responsibility, a concept
whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the
impact of their activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the
environment in all aspects of their operations, over and above the statutory obligation to
comply with legislation.
Environmental Ethics: considers the ethical relationship between human beings and the
natural environment. It addresses questions like "Should we continue to clear cut forests
for the sake of human consumption?", "Should we continue to make gasoline powered
vehicles, depleting fossil fuel resources while the technology exists to create zero-
emission vehicles?", "What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future

generations?", "Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for
the (perceived or real) convenience of humanity?"
Information Ethics: investigates the ethical issues arising from the development and
application of computers and information technologies. It is concerned with issues like
the privacy of information, whether artificial agents may be moral, how one should
behave in the infosphere, and ownership and copyright problems arising from the
creation, collection, recording, distribution, processing, etc, of information.
Media Ethics: deals with the specific ethical principles and standards of media in
general, including the ethical issues relating to journalism, advertising and marketing,
and entertainment media.
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide
ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they
mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our
individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of
universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning
of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to
arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve
articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or
the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining
specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental
concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied
ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between
metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue
of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial
behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of
self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that
procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come
from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
Metaethics
The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics
involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define
metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to
normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined
area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology.
Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality
exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying
mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.
Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism
Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some things in
the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other things are
nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component
of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths
that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general
directions that discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly.

Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective in the
sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They
also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they
are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and
throughout time. The most dramatic example of this view is Plato, who was inspired by
the field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations, such as
1+1=2, they seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the
universe. Humans do not invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained
the eternal character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in
a spirit-like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also
abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects.
Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together under the
heading of "eternal law" which were also frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17th
century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships
rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, though, they exist in a spirit-like realm. A
different other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine
commands issuing from God's will. Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine command
theory), this view was inspired by the notion of an all-powerful God who is in control of
everything. God simply wills things, and they become reality. He wills the physical
world into existence, he wills human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral
values into existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of
Ockham, believe that God wills moral principles, such as "murder is wrong," and these
exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands by
implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture.

The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality
follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek
philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values.
Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values
exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they
argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been called moral
relativism. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is
individualrelativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral standards.
Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her morality
distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of the masses. The second is
cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's
society - and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated
by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham
Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to
the metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality
and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time
and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing
examples of values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes
about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.
Psychological Issues in Metaethics
A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and
conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral. We might explore this
subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even if I am aware of basic
moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does not necessarily mean that I
will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some answers to the question "Why be

moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to
fit in with society.
Egoism and Altruism
One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans.
17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, of our actions
are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to
charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other
people. This view is called psychological egoism and maintains that self-oriented
interests ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism
is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific
driving force behind all of our actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler
agreed that instinctive selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However,
Butler argued that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence
to others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of
our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.
Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of reason in
motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement "abortion is morally
wrong," am I making a rational assessment or only expressing my feelings? On the one
side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume argued that moral
assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can amass all the reasons we
want, but that alone will not constitute a moral assessment. We need a distinctly
emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of service
in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume's words, "reason is, and ought to be, the slave
of the passions." Inspired by Hume's anti-rationalist views, some 20th century

philosophers, and most notably A.J. Ayer similarly denied that moral assessments are
factual descriptions. For example, although the statement "it is good to donate to charity"
may on the surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not.
Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am
expressing my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations and I am in
essence saying "Hooray for charity!" This is called the emotive element insofar as I am
expressing my emotions about some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying
to get you to donate to charity and am essentially giving the command, "Donate to
charity!" This is called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am prescribing some
specific behavior.
From Hume's day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed these
emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics) and instead argued that moral
assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant
is a case in point. Although emotional factors often do influence our conduct, he argued,
we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead, true moral action is motivated
only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. A recent rationalist approach,
offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was proposed in direct opposition to the emotivist and
prescriptivist theories of Ayer and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning
and argumentation process that takes place when making moral choices. All of our moral
choices are, or at least can be, backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is
wrong to steal someone's car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of
argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith's car is wrong since this would
upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at risk of getting caught.
According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making involves giving the best reasons
in support of one course of action versus another.

Male and Female Morality
A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female
approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and
women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional morality is male-
centered, and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be shaped
into a value theory. According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is
male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-
dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing
societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken
as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights
and duties. Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising
children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more
spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral
theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be
appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the
situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled
morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can
remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to
morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement
for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems.
Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong
conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden
Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we
would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is

wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving,
then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically
determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it
would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden
Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which
we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles,
or a set of good character traits.
The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of
moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be
noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentiality theories.
Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules of
conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I must learn these rules, and
then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics, however, places less
emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits
of character, such as benevolence (see moral character). Once I've acquired benevolence,
for example, I will then habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory
is one of the oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in
ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later
called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues
are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to
advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring
bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity.
Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in
one's youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in the young.

Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our
emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the
virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific
virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character
traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have enough courage, I develop the
disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too much courage I develop the
disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task
to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact, we need assistance
from our reason to do this. After Aristotle, medieval theologians supplemented Greek
lists of virtues with three Christian ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity.
Interest in virtue theory continued through the middle ages and declined in the
19thcentury with the rise of alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20th century
virtue theory received special attention from philosophers who believed that more recent
ethical theories were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions, rather than
on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended the central role of
virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are grounded in and emerge from within
social traditions.
Duty Theories
Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as to care
for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base morality on specific,
foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological,
from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or
obligation. They are also sometimes called non consequentiality since these principles are
obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For

example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit,
such as financial savings. There are four central duty theories.
The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who
classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself, and
duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds:
1. A theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and
2. A practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worships God.
Concerning our duties towards one, these are also of two sorts:
1. Duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and
2. Duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through
gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself.
Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties,
which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of
contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts:
1. Avoid wronging others,
2. Treat people as equals, and
3. Promote the good of others.
Conditional duties involve various types of agreements; the principal one of which is the
duty is to keep one's promises.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a "right" is a
justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to not be harmed by
you (see also human rights). Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of
one person imply the duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment

of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of
rights and duties. The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th
century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that
we should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our
natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of
Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that
we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property,
movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four features traditionally
associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or
created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from
country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all
people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which
means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into
slavery.
A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty.
Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others,
such as developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant
argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular
duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the "categorical
imperative." A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from
hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example,
"If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college." By contrast, a
categorical imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one's personal desires,
such as "You ought to do X." Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical

imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to
an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere
instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someone
reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally
correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat
someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve
something else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would be
treating her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates
the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong
since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant
believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single
principle of duty.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. Ross,
which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross
argues that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the universe." However,
Ross's list of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral
convictions:
 Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
 Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
 Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
 Justice: the duty to recognize merit
 Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
 Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
 Non maleficent: the duty to not injure others

Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting
duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and promise to return it
when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks
for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of
fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence
obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I
will intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent
or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty
and I should not return the gun.
Consequentiality Theories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences
of our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct is determined
solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences:
Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentiality normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad
consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater,
then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is
morally improper. Consequentiality theories are sometimes called teleological theories,
from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole
determining factor of its morality.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who
wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than
by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most

attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable
consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely
formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentiality
theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three
subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:
 Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
 Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of
people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other.
They also yield different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was
traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in front of her run off
the road and roll over several times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but,
to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the
road, the driver explained that in his country, if someone assists an accident victim, then
the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the accident itself. If the victim
dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible for the death. The driver
continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore usually left unattended and
often die from exposure to the country's harsh desert conditions. On the principle of
ethical egoism, the woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the
consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision
to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she

would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others are affected,
particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting
the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences
that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences
for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would
need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus drawback of her action.
Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism.
Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the
consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis
whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as
act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain
which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of
Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in
both of these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure
activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that
produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities
doesn't seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts
of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions
outweighed the drawback. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism
addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is
morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than
unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of

each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of
moral rules, such as "stealing is wrong." Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more
favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true
for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered
method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor's car, is
judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is
morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for
everyone. John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only
factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores
other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For
example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always
pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which
involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not
simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism,
which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our preferences.
Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
We have seen (in Section 1.b.i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical theory
of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions are selfishly motivated. Upon
that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social contract theory,
which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons,
the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. For
without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish interests. Our
property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will
therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized

community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying,
stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the
rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property
once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor.
Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we
create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules.
Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific,
controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent years
applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical
ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethics. Generally speaking, two
features are necessary for an issue to be considered an "applied ethical issue." First, the
issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people
both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not
an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By
contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there are
significant groups of people both for and against gun control.
The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a
distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive
issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, involuntary commitment
of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic business practices, public versus
private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are
controversial and have an important impact on society, they are not all moral issues.
Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given
society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning

codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as
our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of
social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and
immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people
would argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, but may not feel that there should be
social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly,
some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales.
But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a
resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied
ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it must be morally
relevant as well.
In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of
abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our
normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces
greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally
acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival
normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions.
Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from
using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue. The
usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative
principles on a given issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies.
Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task.
The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism
that might focus only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen

as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason,
principles that appeal to duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no
impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones
most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:
 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for the individual in question.
 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for society.
 Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
 Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they
cannot do so themselves.
 Principle of harm: do not harm others.
 Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or
physical body.
 Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair
compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
 Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free
expression, and safety.
The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and are
derived from both consequentiality and duty-based approaches. The first two principles,
personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentiality since they appeal to the
consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles
are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and

lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy,
justice, and the various rights are based on moral rights.
An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical
discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a baby with severe
mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the infant, known as Baby
Doe, had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive
nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the
couple did not want to raise a severely disabled child and therefore chose to deny
surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision, and
six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby
Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive from the infant's right to life and
the principle of paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of
others when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective
surgery derive from the personal and social drawback which would result from such
surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it
probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's perspective, Baby
Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burden. When
examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded that the
arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing
surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it
would endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe's right to life was not clear given the
severity of the infant's mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than
merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue
here involves what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many
applied ethical discussions.

Issues in Applied Ethics
As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some of which
will be briefly mentioned here. Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which
arise in clinical settings. Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually
dealing with life and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues
are more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues arise
about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses, the status of
unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about patient rights and
physician's responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the patient's records and the
physician's responsibility to tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the
specific issues of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether
physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical
experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and the rights of
the mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the
justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia.
The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social
responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities,
deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination,
affirmative action, drug testing, and whistles blowing.
Issues in environmental ethics often overlap with business and medical issues. These
include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation, preserving
endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental resources, whether
eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and our obligation to future
generations.

Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual
relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.
Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment, nuclear
war, and gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and racism.


01 BOOK 1 ICBA Rev01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 BOOK 1 ICBA Rev01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 BOOK 1 ICBA Rev01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOOK 1

INTEGRATED CHARACTER BUILDING A

1.1 Character Definition

with others who may not study in the similar program.

Character education is a teaching activity that helps students to recognize universal

the student behavior, whether by cognition, affection, or behavior. Cognitive character

Affective character education means to teach students to recognize love, affection,

nationality, or the value of Pancasila. Behavioral character education teaches students to

be able to identify the right behavior in running a certain value.

Prepared for international program in Engineering Faculty, University of Indonesia. 2017.

(Dewantara in Takwin, 2012). Character formation is also an important issue in education

considering the purpose of education is the formation of character (Santoso in Takwin,

personality. Character is formed through education, experience, experimentation,

(Selligman in Peterson & Selligman, 2004).

In the Nations Character Development policy, character is defined as distinctive values

that are internalized within and displayed in behavior. Character is a characteristic of a

face of challenges (Indonesian Government, 2010). The Educational Ministry

(Kemendiknas RI, 2011) has identified 18 values of character that needed to be

Prepared for international program in Engineering Faculty, University of Indonesia. 2017.

embedded to learners based on religion, Pancasila, culture, and national education

1.2. Character Strength

Peterson and Seligman (2004) put forward several criteria of character.

and for others.

3. A strength needs to be manifest in the range of an individual's behavior—thoughts,

feelings, and/or actions—in such a way that it can be assessed.

4. Strong characters can be distinguished from traits contrary to them. fifth

5. The character strength is accommodated by the ideal model or frame of mind.

who perceive it.

strengths appear in one person.

actualization is influenced by the social environment.

Prepared for international program in Engineering Faculty, University of Indonesia. 2017.

1.3. Establishing Character Strength and Virtue.

theories, theories of character strength are subjects ready to be changed in accordance

skillful use of knowledge.

1. Creativity & Imagination [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and

productive ways to conceptualize and do things.

2. Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest

in ongoing experience for its own sake; exploring and discovering.

3. Open-mindedness [holistic judgment, critical thinking]: Thinking things

4. Love of learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge,

whether on one’s own or formally.

5. Holistic perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others;

accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external and internal.

Prepared for international program in Engineering Faculty, University of Indonesia. 2017.

on convictions even if unpopular.

7. Persistence [perseverance, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts;

persisting in a course of action in spite of obstacles.

8. Integrity [authenticity, honesty]: Presenting oneself in a genuine way; taking

responsibility for one’s feeling and actions.

energy; feeling alive and motivated.

in which sharing and caring are reciprocated.

11. Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love,

“niceness”]: Doing favors and good deeds for others.

12. Social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being

aware of the motives and feelings of other people and oneself.

13. Citizenship [social responsibility, loyalty, teamwork]: Working well as a

member of a group or team; being loyal to the group.

justice; not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others.

shortcomings of others; giving people a second chance; not being vengeful.