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.Therefore, what is right in one society might not be right in another society.

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.

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 our society and the Eskimo society.  Our moral code prohibits infanticide.  The Eskimo moral code permits it.

Evaluate

Though the premise in this argument is true, this argument is invalid.  Just because different societies have different moral codes, it does not follow that what is really right in one society might not be right in another.  Yes, everyone in the eskimo society thinks infanticide is morally permissible, but maybe they are mistaken about this.  In any case, just pointing out the fact that their moral code permits infacticide does not show that it is really morally ok for them to perform infanticide.

To prove the conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premise, consider the following parody argument:

1*. Different societies have different beliefs about the shape of earth (some societies think it is flat, others think it is round).
2*. Therefore, the shape of the earth in one society might not be the same as the shape of the earth in another society.

Premise 1* is true -- it is a fact of sociology.  But the conclusion is obviously false.  The shape of the earth is round, no matter what any society believes.  It makes no sense to say that in one society the claim "The earth is flat" is true, but in another society the claim "The earth is round" is true.

Since the Cultural Differences argument is invalid we can accept the premise without having to accept the conclusion.  Also, since the argument is invalid, it is unsound.

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 some part of the moral code of his or her society is mistaken (e.g., that some act that the code declares to be morally right is in fact morally wrong).

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.

There are many other examples of moral reformers: Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Nelson Mandela.  Sometimes, such people are not mistaken.

Evaluate

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