Ethics
INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
Introduction to Ethics
 What is Ethics
 Morality & Ethics
 Moral Philosophy/Ethics
 Some Classic Moral Problems
 Some Moral Questions
 Ethical Assessment & Value
 Focus of Ethical Assessment
 Value
Introduction to Ethics
 Spectrum of Morality
 Introduction
 Absolutism
 Objectivism
 Relativism
 Subjectivism
 Moral Nihilism
 Moral Skepticism
Introduction to Ethics
 IV Ethics & Other Normative Areas
 Introduction
 Ethics
 Religion
 Law/Rules
 Etiquette
 Aesthetics
 Distinct
Ethical Reasoning
 Moral Issues
 Issue
 Ethical Issue
 Resolution
 Components of An Ethical Issue
 Facts
 Relevant Facts
 Agreement & Disagreement
 Resolution of Factual Issues
Ethical Reasoning
 Concepts
 Relevant Concepts
 Agreement & Disagreement
 Resolution of Conceptual Issues
 Morality/Values
 Morality
 Resolution
 Values & Facts
 Value Statements/Matters of Value
 Factual Statements/Matters of Fact
Ethical Reasoning
 Objectivity & Subjectivity
 Objective Statement
 Subjective Statement
 Objective-Subjective Dispute
Argument Basics
Argument Basics
 Argument Concepts
 Defined
 General Assessment: Reasoning
 General Assessment: Are the Premises True?
Deductive Arguments
 Introduction to Deductive Arguments
 Defined
 Use
 Assessment
 Valid/Invalid, Sound/Unsound
 Some Common Valid Deductive Arguments
 Reductio Ad Adsurdum
 Defined
 Form #1/Form #2
 Example
Inductive Arguments
 Introduction to Inductive Arguments
 Defined
 Assessment
 Strong & Weak Arguments
Analogical Argument
 Introduction
 Definition
 Uses
 Form
 Informal
 Strict Form
Premise 1: X has properties P, Q, and R.
 Premise 2: Y has properties P, Q, and R.
 Premise 3: X has property Z as well.
 Conclusion: Y has property Z.

Analogical Argument
 Assessment
 The strength of the argument depends on
The number of properties X & Y have in common.
 The relevance of the shared properties to Z.
 Whether X & Y have relevant dissimilarities.


Example
Argument from/by Example
 Introduction
 Defined
 Form
 Informal
 Form
Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P.
Premise 2: Example 2 is an example that supports claim P.
Premise n: Example n is an example that supports claim C.
Conclusion: Claim P is true.
Argument from/by Example
 Standards of Assessment
 Standards
The more examples, the stronger the argument.
 The examples must be relevant.
 The examples must be specific & clearly identified.
 Counter-examples must be considered.

Argument from Authority
 Introduction
 Defined
 Use
 Form
 Premise 1: Person A is an authority on subject S.
 Premises 2: Person A makes claim C about subject S.
 Premises 3: Therefore, C is true.
Argument from Authority
 Assessment
 Standards
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject.
 The claim is within the expert’s area of expertise.
 There is an adequate degree of agreement among experts.
 The expert is not significantly biased.
 The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
 The authority must be properly cited.

Logical Consistency(General)
 Concepts & Method
 Responding
 Ethical Relativism, Subjectivism & Nihilism
Consistent Application (Normative)
 Concepts, Assumptions & Method
 Responding
Reversing the Situation(Ethics)
 Method
 Considerations
 Responding
Argument by Definition (General)
 Method
 Assessing Definitions
 Responding
Appeal to Intuition
 Method
 Responding
Applying Moral Principles(Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
Applying Moral Theories (Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
The “Playing God” Argument(Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
The Unnatural Argument(Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
Appeal to Consequences(Normative)
 Method
 Responding
Appeal to Rules(Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
Appeal to Rights (Ethics)
 Method
 Responding
Mixing Norms
 Method
 Making the Connection
 Considerations
 Responding