1

PHI 332W: Health Care Ethics

Module 4 : Argument Evaluation

In modules 2 and 3 you learned how to identify arguments. In this module you will learn how to evaluate arguments. To evaluate an argument is to judge it as good or bad, strong or weak. Argument evaluation is the heart of any course in ethics. It is, of course, impossible to evaluate an argument before you have identified what the argument is, which is why we spent time (a frustrating time for many of you, I know) learning to identify arguments. Now at last you will get to express your opinions about the arguments we have identified! The general technique you will learn is that of raising objections and considering replies. Many moral arguments use analogies (in contrast, many scientific arguments use causal or statistical arguments); therefore I include some specialized techniques having to do with arguments from analogy.

I will continue to work with the section in your text on “The Morality of Abortion.” I made this choice for several reasons. In the first place, this is a topic where arguments have failed to produce broad agreement in our society. Its important that you recognize this limit to human argument. But (my second reason) it is equally important to recognize what the study of arguments accomplishes even here: that a number of initially plausible arguments are not good and should not be convincing. At a personal level (my third reason), this discovery will actually make you a better person. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (who was probably the greatest evaluator of ethical argument in human history) described this important change in the following words:

You will be less harsh and gentler to your associates, for you will have the wisdom not to think you know that which you do not know.

Finally, since almost everyone has thought about and is already familiar with the main pro and con arguments about abortion, and since the topic of abortion requires less specialized background information than most topics in health care ethics, it will be easier for you to practice the techniques of raising objections and the use of arguments from analogy.

4.1 Objections and replies

You will be pleased to know that you don’t need to learn any new diagramming technique in order to learn to raise objections. The basic idea is simple. Any argument is always built of premises leading to conclusions.

There are only two places to raise an objection: either the premise is false or the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In other words, we can raise objections either to the truth of the premise or the inference to the conclusion.

Notice—and this will surprise many of you—that our judgment about the truth of the conclusion is almost completely irrelevant to our evaluation of the argument for it. On the one hand, our judgment that a conclusion is true tells us nothing as to whether the argument for it is any good, since it is common in ethics to find bad arguments for true conclusions. On the other hand, our judgment that a conclusion is false means there must be some mistake in any argument for that conclusion, but it does not indicate where or how such an argument is bad.

Evaluation, then, takes place at two parts in an argument diagram:

Ask yourself these questions in evaluating an argument:

  1. Are the premises true?--In practice, this means: Can you raise objections to the premise?
  2. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? (Not: “Is the conclusion true?”)—In practice, this means: can you think of situations where the premise is true but the conclusion might be false?

The best way to learn argument evaluation is to practice with examples.

4.1.1 Are the premises true?

Do (or review) exercise 3.4.10. Then turn the page.

In exercise 3.4.10 I diagrammed John Paul II’s positive argument for his conclusion that abortion is immoral as follows.

There are no objections to premise 3, which states that IF abortion is murder, then its immorality (its “moral gravity”) is apparent. (If you think premise 3 is objectionable, notice that premise 3 does NOT state that abortion is murder: it merely makes an “iffy” remark. Compare: “if shaving is murder, than its moral gravity is apparent.”)

Now consider premise 2. Even if you agree with premise 2, you should be able to think of an objection to it. Type that objection below, then turn the page.

My objection to premise 2:

Premise 2 is not clearly true. In other words, it is not obviously true that a fetal life at every stage (even as fertilized egg) is a human being in the relevant sense for its destruction to be murder.

Notice that my objection is a mere assertion, with no argument supporting it. If you gave argument supporting your assertion that premise 2 is not clearly true, then your answer is better than mine. While my objection is the most common, you may have thought of an entirely different objection. If so, give yourself a pat on the back!

Notice that I do not, in evaluating an argument, have to prove that premise 2 is false. I do, however, have to show that its truth is not clear. If a premise is not obvious, then any conclusion drawn from it is not obvious, either.

4.1.2 Does the conclusion follow?

Do (or review) exercise 3.4.15. Then turn the page.

In exercise 3.4.15 I diagrammed part of Susan Sherwin’s positive argument for her conclusion that women have a right to choose abortion as follows.

Premise W.4 is unobjectionable. (People can believe just about anything!) But there are objections to the inference she draws from W.4. The way to state an objection to this inference is to think of a situation where W.4 is true but W.3 false. Type your objection below. If you need help, I put a hint on the next page.

Hint to finding an objection to the inference from W.4 to W.3: Think of a possible life plan a woman could have which is non-compelling (ideally, a life plan that everyone, including Sherwin herself, would regard as non-compelling, failing that, a life plan that many people would regard as non-compelling).

My objection to the inference from incompatible life plan to compelling reason for abortion:

If the life plan is not compelling, then the fact that having a child is incompatible with the plan is not compelling, either. And a life plan need not be compelling but might be frivolous or irresponsible or otherwise deplorable. For example, a life plan to do whatever the husband desires (and he desires only boys, not girls); so when ultrasound reveals a perfectly healthy baby girl, continuing the pregnancy is incompatible with her life plan. [I’m guessing that Sherwin will find such a life plan deplorable and not necessarily compelling.] To take another example, in her seventh month a woman reads a glossy travel brochure and wants to abort so she can look good in a swimming suit a couple months sooner in Europe. When we ask her, “Is this your life plan?” she replies that the opportunities she could miss in Europe to meet people might have devastating repercussions throughout her life—this could be her only chance to meet a millionaire!” [I’m guessing that most people would find this life plan frivolous and not compelling.]

Again, you may have thought of a different objection or objections. If so, well done!

4.1.3 How to think of objections

When you are writing your research paper, you may have trouble thinking of objections to an argument (or “seeing both sides of an issue,” as we sometimes say), or you may wonder if you are leaving out a good objection. If that happens, there are three things to do to look for objections:

  1. The article that gives the argument you are examining might itself consider objections. For example, John Paul II states an objection to his own premise 2 in the first sentence of his paragraph 7.
  2. Other articles on the same subject might state objections. For example we see Thomson object to Paul’s premise 2 in para. 1 of her article (p. 332); Warren objects to it in section II.1 (pp. 346-7); Marquis in para. 5 (pp. 352-353), Sherwin in the first paragraph of her section “The Fetus” (p. 363), and Callahan, sec. 3 para. 1 (p. 367).
  3. Talk to other people, especially those with different perspectives than you have, to try in conversation to find objections to the argument you are interested in. (This would be your best bet with the Sherwin inference from life plan to compelling abortion.) With a little practice, you’ll find that you can anticipate what different people will say, and you can carry on conversations between them in your own mind. This process is called “reflection.” There’s an important lesson here, which surprises many people and will help you write your research paper: your best friend, if you want to defend a thesis as well as possible, is someone who is best at raising objections to your thesis, and often this will be someone who disagrees with you, perhaps passionately, about your thesis.

The first two strategies are simply a matter of doing the research you need on your topic. They assure you that your paper is not missing objections that it should contain. The third strategy is your best bet for developing an original objection. Ideally, your research paper will cover objections already in the literature and somewhere contain at least one original idea. Be sure to cover the objections already published; otherwise your research paper will be ill-informed.

4.1.4 Objections to objections

Just as you can object to an argument, you can also object to an objection or “reply” to it. For example, a reply to my objection above would give reasons why fetal life is a human being in the relevant sense. If your objection was better than mine—that is, it provided an argument—then a reply to your objection would examine the premises of that argument and raise an objection to one or more of them. Notice that, once a reply is stated, we can continue the inquiry by raising an objection to it, and an objection to that, and so on. If we can conclude this process by giving good answers to all objections to our position, we have defended our thesis. It is unlikely that your research paper will successfully defend the thesis that abortion is (or is not) immoral. The issue is too big; there are too many objections and replies to cover. It is much more likely that your research paper will be able to successfully contribute to the thesis that abortion is (or is not) immoral by defending a more restricted thesis, such as “One argument for (against) abortion is poor” or “One objection to an argument for (against) abortion fails (or succeeds).” I’ll help you individually to find the right statement of your thesis. Often you won’t know until the final draft!

4.1.5 Make your objections works of love!

Obviously, the more you practice raising objections, the better you will get at it. It may surprise you, however, to learn that your actions in raising objections develop your moral character as well as your powers of intellect. You want to monitor and seek to improve your personal character in all your human actions, including the action of arguing and inquiring in a research paper or discussion. In particular, you want to exercise and develop the human virtues of magnanimity, fidelity, benevolence, and charity in your interpretations and evaluations of arguments.

Magnanimity is largeness or greatness of spirit. The activity of argument about ethics is to find out or explain to another the truth about the issue at hand. If I can think only of winning a victory for myself in discussion, this is because my spirit is too small to recognize a goal outside of myself. This smallness or meanness of spirit, the opposite of magnanimity, is pusillanimity. The magnanimous person remembers that argument about health care ethics is not a competitive sport aimed at winning prestige for oneself. The argument is, rather, the only way human beings have to inquire into the truth of issues vital to their humanity. It takes a large spirit to keep in mind the goal of finding the truth, a goal that has nothing to do with self-glorification. Take care that you, in raising objections, do it, not with the aim of winning a debate, but with the aim of uncovering, as far as humanly possible, the truth in community with your partner in conversation.

Fidelity is being faithful to your partner in discussion (it doesn’t matter whether the discussion is written or oral). You are faithful when your objection speaks precisely to the argument of the other. You may have noticed that I try to use direct quotations wherever possible in identifying and diagramming arguments, and when I had to supply my own words, I try to make clear in the diagram my own interpretation by the use of square brackets. These are examples of acts of fidelity. The opposite of fidelity is infidelity or unfaithfulness. If you are careless in how you present the argument you are evaluating, you risk being unfaithful to the author, your partner in that discussion. You are unfaithful when you misrepresent the argument of another (for example, in objecting to a crude or silly position that your partner did not actually say).

Benevolence (or “good will”) is desiring or delighting that good things happen to another person. You should make your arguments and raise your objections with benevolence. Always be able to add these words, at least silently, to your objections and arguments: “You seek the truth in this matter, and therefore I want to share whatever insights I might possess with you, for I love you and this is how I show my friendship for you.” If you lack benevolence in your arguments, your motive must be defective somehow. If you don’t care about the other person, why are you bothering to talk? Just to get your way? Just to dominate a conversation? Just to show off? The opposite of benevolence is malice (or “malevolence”): not just lacking good will, but actually desiring or delighting that bad things happen to another, such as their humiliation in a conversation. The person with the defect of malice is truly evil.

Charity is thinking the best of other people. Charity assumes as far as possible that the motives of others are good and puts the best possible construction on their words and actions. The opposite sort of people are uncharitable: they assume that someone who disagrees with them in argument must be either stupid or evil. You will strive in your writing and conversation to show that you have the highest regard for the moral character and intellect of your partners in discussion. Thus abuse or disparaging remarks have no place in your objections. (It is not, however, necessarily abusive to show that another’s claim leads to absurdity: it is sometimes the best way to show that a claim is false.) Make it your policy to come to believe that your partner is cruel or selfish or greedy or uncaring or sexist or racist only when every other interpretive option is exhausted. And before you ever conclude that your partner is stupid, you will assume that you are ineffective in expressing the truth you must know but they do not. Watch yourself as you raise objections to arguments. so that you act with charity and do not become uncharitable!

Magnanimity, fidelity, benevolence, and charity are excellences (or “virtues”) of human character. Their lacks or opposites are defects (or “vices”). Show good character in all you do, including your arguments with others. Virtue is its own reward, by the way: the better your moral character becomes the more you will profit from the argument and the less you have to fear of being harmed by the behavior of others, for it is not your ego on the line in a game of winner-take-all, but rather a disinterested search for truth.

Finally, I must point out that these virtues--magnanimity, fidelity, benevolence, and charity—are ideals that no one possesses perfectly. So don’t be discouraged if you find that you never possess them perfectly: that means you’re like the rest of us!

4.1.6 Good manners in conversation

The activity of raising objections by its nature examines the acceptability of a premise or inference. The whole point of the objection is to test what has been said. If your assumption in making the objection is that your partners are wrong and that your objection will shut them up, you are being uncharitable. Do NOT say:

!!!“You are wrong (or stupid or silly or immoral) to say that!”

You should NOT assume that your objection is a conversation stopper (“I win! The truth is obvious!”)

DO say:

“Am I understanding you right that [blah blah]?

[If yes,] do you agree this means [la dee dah]?

[If yes,] perhaps [la dee dah] will seem wrong to many people?

In making objections, always speak as if giving an invitation to draw out the intelligence of your partner further in the matter {“You have a different perspective on this than I do, so there’s a good chance that, by putting our heads together, we may actually make a bit of progress towards understanding the issue better.”)

4.1.7 Exercise

Do or review exercise 3.4.12. State an objection to Mary Anne Warren’s following argument: