Philosophy 160
Introduction to Ethics

Handout 4 - Presenting, Explaining, and Evaluating Arguments

On exams, I will often ask you to Present, Explain, and Evaluate some argument.

To Present an argument is simply to write it down -- just write down the line-by-line formulation of the argument, as it appeared on the chalkboard in class or on a handout.

To Explain an argument is to do two things for each premise of the argument: (i) define any technical terms that appear in the premise; and (ii) give the rationale for the premise.  The rationale for a premise is the reason why someone would think the premise is true.  In Explaining an argument, you don't need to say anything about the conclusion.

To Evaluate an argument is to say whether it is valid and whether you think it is sound.  If you say that you think the argument is unsound, you must say which premise you think is false and why you think it is false.  (Many times, I will ask you to explain which premise a critic of the argument would deny, even if you happen to think all the premises are true.)

To illustrate all of this, I have Presented, Explained, and Evaluated two of our arguments below.

Example 1: Present, Explain, and Evaluate the Cultural Differences Argument.

Present

1. Different societies have different beliefs about right and wrong.
2. If different societies have different beliefs about right and wrong, then what’s right and wrong depends upon the beliefs of society.
3. If what’s right and wrong depends upon the beliefs of society, then CR is true.
4. Therefore, CR is true.

Explain

Premise 1:

Technical Terms:
- a society is a collection of people, living in proximity to each other, sharing a language, religion, cuisine, and culture.
- the moral code of a society is the set of moral rules that are accepted by the members of the society.

Rationale:
This is a sociological fact.  One example of the fact that different societies have different beliefs about right and wrong is the difference between the moral codes of our society and the Eskimo society.  Our moral code prohibits infanticide.  The Eskimo moral code permits it.

Premise 2:

(no new technical terms)

Rationale:
Many sociologists seem to think this premise is true.  Perhaps the reason is that they think that if there is widespread disagreement about some matter, then there must be no objective truth in the matter.

Premise 3:

Technical Terms:
- CR: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society of the agent of the act.
(I have already defined 'moral code' and 'society'.)

Rationale:
- To say that what's right and wrong depends upon the beliefs of society is another way of expressing the basic idea behind CR.  So, if in fact what's right and wrong depends upon the beliefs of society, then CR would be true.

Evaluate

Though this argument is valid, I think it is unsound, because I think premise 2 is false.  Just because different societies have different beliefs about right and wrong, it does not follow that what's right and wrong depends upon the beliefs of society.  To illustrate, consider the fact that different societies have different beliefs about the shape of the earth (some think the earth is flat; others think it is round).  This fact of course does not imply that the shape of the earth depends upon the beliefs of society.  The same goes for right and wrong.

Example 2: Present, Explain, and Evaluate The Reformer's Dilemma.

Present

1. If CR is true, then every moral reformer is mistaken
2. Not every moral reformer is mistaken.
3. Therefore, CR is not true.

Explain

Premise 1:

Technical Terms:
- CR: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society of the agent of the act.
- a society is a collection of people, living in proximity to each other, sharing a language, religion, cuisine, and culture.
- the moral code of a society is the set of moral rules that are accepted by the members of the society.
- a moral reformer is a person who thinks that the moral code of his or her society is mistaken (that some act that the code declares to be morally right is in fact morally wrong, or vice-versa).

Rationale:
If CR is true, then, by definition of CR, no moral code is ever mistaken--that is, every act declared by the moral code to be morally right really is morally right.  If no moral code is ever mistaken, then every moral reformer must be mistaken, because moral reformers are people who say that the moral code of his or her own society is mistaken.

Premise 2:

(no new technical terms)

Rationale:
It is clear that not every moral reformer is mistaken.  An example is Frederick Douglas.  The moral code of his society permitted slavery, and Douglas saw that the code was mistaken on this count.  And he was right, for slavery is an outrage.  Since Douglas was right about this, not every moral reformer is mistaken.

Evaluate

This argument is valid.  I also think it is sound.