Chapter 5: After Theory

Which Theory is Best?

One might ask, which theory is best? This question, however, is problematic and, at best, unhelpful. A more fruitful approach involves questions like: “Do I have a basic understanding of the theories presented?”; “What ethical insights can I glean from these theories?”; “What does each theory get right?”; “What lessons can I learn from each ethical perspective?” By considering these questions, one can use the various theories to inform a range of inquiries, such as:

1. Am I treating all persons with respect, i.e., with the dignity they deserve simply because they are human beings? (Kant’s humanity formulation of the CI)
2. Am I treating all concerned fairly? (Kant’s universalizability formulation of the CI)
3. Have I tried to promote the most good for as many as possible? (Utilitarianism)
4. Are my actions, attitudes, and responses balanced? (Aristotle’s Golden Mean)
5. Am I becoming the type of person I desire to be? (Virtue ethics in general)
6. Are my dealings with others marked by love (love for self, love for neighbors, and love for God)? In other words, am I treating others as I would have them treat me? (Jesus)

Keeping these questions in mind can make even the most challenging moral issues more manageable.

A Few More “Tools” for Your Ethical Toolbox

In addition, thoughtful individuals should consider the following in their ethical deliberations:

1. Real-life ethical questions do not arise in a vacuum; they arise within a context. It is essential to clarify relevant facts as much as possible before forming judgments. Failing to do so risks committing one of the most common errors in reasoning: drawing conclusions based on insufficient, irrelevant, or inadequate evidence.
2. Identify all those who morally matter and avoid prioritizing one person or group over others without compelling reasons.
3. A common mistake in reasoning is overlooking alternatives that should be considered alongside more obvious options. In addition to seeking the “best” alternative, it is valuable to ask: “Do I have an adequate understanding of the various positions or perspectives?” “What does each position or perspective get right?” It is unlikely that one side of a debate is entirely correct while the other side is completely mistaken, or vice versa.

Argument Analysis & Evaluation: A Little Logic

As previously discussed, reason plays a special role in moral philosophy. This section on basic logic is intended to aid in the evaluation of philosophical arguments. Engaging in moral philosophy involves analyzing arguments, and a fundamental understanding of logic is required for effective critique. Logic is concerned with argumentation, where “argument” is essentially a piece of reasoning. Arguments should be examined based on two dimensions: Form (or Structure) and Content.

To facilitate this process, it is helpful to re-express the argument in standard form.

Standard Form

Re-expressing arguments into standard form clarifies what we are working with. To put an argument into standard form, identify and differentiate its various component statements or propositions (PREMISES vs. CONCLUSION). Statements that serve as reasons for the conclusion are called “premises.” Any fundamental assumptions or basic principles grounding the premises can also be classified as premises. The statement or proposition that follows from the premises and is claimed to be supported by them is called the “conclusion.” When putting an argument into standard form, draw a horizontal line, placing the premises above the line and the conclusion below it. Although the wording, number, and sequence of premises may vary, it is crucial to reflect all essential ideas in the standard-form representation.

Standard formulation simplifies the process of evaluating an argument’s form. When assessing the form, focus on the linkage between the premises and the conclusion. A strong linkage means better reasoning, while a weak linkage indicates weaker reasoning. To gauge this linkage, ask a simple question: If the premises were true, would the conclusion have to be true? If the answer is yes, the argument is valid; if no, the argument is invalid.

In the second phase of argument evaluation, examine the content. Ask whether all of the argument’s premises are true or at least reasonable to believe. If the premises are reasonable, the argument’s content is acceptable. If the premises are unreasonable or controversial, the content is problematic. For an argument to be considered cogent, it must have both good form and acceptable content.