Lecture 3

Question 1

Continue: Schools of Ethics

Answer 1

Aristotelian virtue ethics is a type of virtue ethics that is based on the teachings of the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. According to Aristotle, virtues are habits or dispositions that lead to a good and flourishing life. He believed that virtues are formed through practice and repetition, and the ultimate goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia, or “happiness” or “flourishing”. Aristotle identified several virtues, including courage, prudence, justice, and temperance. He believed that virtues are the mean between the extremes, such as the mean between cowardice and recklessness being courage. He also believed that virtues are necessary for achieving eudaimonia, and that they are interrelated, with one virtue leading to another.
- be virtuous
- become a better person
- not acting properly is bad
- not acting at all is bad (cowardis)

Question 2

Deontology

Answer 2

(Kantian) believes that rule and laws dictate the rightness and wrongness of behaviour as long as they are dealt in good faith and treats people as ends, not menas (categorical imperative).
- rules and laws, being transparent, good faith, treat people as not means (treat people how you want to be treated) and keep promises

Question 3

Utilitarianism

Answer 3

(Mills) believes that the right decision is the one that maximizes happiness (utility) and reduces suffering.
- policy making
- whatever will make the most people happy is the right decision
- politicians, have insurance, medicine - choosing who to save
- ends justify the means
- what about the minority?

Question 4

Existentialism

Answer 4

Believes that there is no universal meaning to reality beyond the meaning that each one of us projects, and thus one’s morality is a reflection of one’s authentic self while acting in good faith by accepting the frightening truth oof absolute freedom. Existentialism still accepts universal values of authenticity and acting in good faith.
- decide what you want to be and do that
- frightening truth of absolute freedom

Question 5

The four principles of biomedical ethics

Answer 5

The four principles of biomedical ethics

• respect for autonomy (a norm of respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons)
  - free to do what they want in good faith, and with their own judgement
  - told you need to take meds, you don’t have to if you don’t want to
  - mental disability
  - unconscious
  - no age of consent
  - being drunk is not, not being able to give consent
  - can still say yes or no
• non-maleficence (a norm of avoiding the causation of harm)
  - do no harm (intention)
  - saving someone from a burning car, but paralyse them
  - doctors neglecting patients - by not giving meds on time by not setting an alarm
• beneficence (a group of norms for providing benefits and balancing benefits against risks and costs); and
  - planning to do good
• justice (a group of norms for distributing benefits, risks and costs fairly)
  - equal access
  - no discrimination

Health care professional or actor - use these

Question 6

Formalism:

Answer 6

Don’t go deeper than the laws

To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by the rules, where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity

Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles

For the purpose our course, all sports are games

Following a rule book
- you can play a sport

Not following a rule book
- ou can’t playa sport

Cheat, or door - you can’t play anymore

Question 7

Conventionalism

Answer 7

How we decide to play the game

Conventionalists argue that an adequate account of sport must appeal to collectively agreed-upon norms called “conventions”

Fred D’Agostino, the pioneer of conventionalism, maintains that the conventions that operate within a game constitute the “ethos” of the game. The ethos of the game is the “set of unofficial, implicit conventions which determine how the rules of a game are to be applied in concrete circumstances

Question 8

Broad internalism (interpretivism)

Answer 8

Not what is sport but what it should be!
- sportsmanship
- ends and means

Sporting competition as a “mutually accepted quest for excellence through challenge

Generates a coherent and principled account of the point and purposes that underlie the game, attempting to show the game in its best light

Question 9

Today students will learn to

Answer 9

1. Recognize general features of arguments
2. Distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments and evaluate them for validity, soundness, strength, and weakness
3. Identify unstated premises
4. Identify a balance of considerations argument and an inference to the best explanation (IBE)
5. Distinguish between ethos, pathos, and logos as means of persuasion
6. Use techniques for understanding and evaluating the structure and content of arguments

Question 10

Arguments: general features

Answer 10

• an argument consists of two parts: the premise and the conclusion
• the premise is intended to provide a reason for accepting the conclusion
• a statement by itself is not an argument
• an emphasis statement is not an argument

Question 11

Conclusions used as premises

Answer 11

• a statement can be both the conclusion of one argument and a premise in another argument
• if a premise in an argument is uncertain or controversial, the speaker may need to defend it, making it the conclusion of a new argument
• however, it is not always reasonable to keep asking for defence of each primes, as it can become unreasonable
• in the example, asking why the car has outlived its usefulness may lead to the mention of the car being hard to start, but asking why the car is hard to start may not have a clear answer

Conclusion can use premise of a different conclusion

Question 12

Unstated premises and conclusion

Answer 12

• arguments can contain unstated assumptions or premises, such as in the example “you can’t check out books from the library without an ID. Bill won’t be able o check out at books.” Where the unstated assumption is that bill does not have an ID
• arguments can also have unstated conclusions, where the conclusion is not explicitly stated but can be inferred, such as in the example “Stacy drives a Porsche. This suggests that either she is rich or her parents are”. Where the conclusion is “either she is rich or her parents are”.
• certain words and phrases, such as “thus” consequently,” “therefore”, “so”, “hence” “accordingly” “this shows that” “this implies that” and “this suggests that” “c signal that a premise has been presented and a conclusion is about to be made.
• unstated premises are common in real life and can often be assumed as obvious
• unstated conclusions are less common than unstated premises

Question 13

deductive argument

Answer 13

• a deductive argument is a type of argument in which the premise or premises, if true, prove or demonstrate the conclusion
• the concept of validity is important in deductive logic, which states that an argument is valid if it is not possible for the premise or premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. What is a valid argument?
• when the premise of a valid argument is true, the argument is said to be sound
• a good deductive argument has to be true and valid

Wen in doubt pick inductive reasoning

• pigeons are birds, birds all fly, legions must fly
  
  • anyone can make a great conclusion
• need valid premise to support conclusion
• either true or false, no in between
• strong argument or weak argument
  - more information you present is a better conclusion
  - missing some information
• better the data the better the argument/conclusion

95% of prohibited stuff scientists can’t even prove how it enhances athletes
- proof by how its not meant for humans or human studies
- do no harm principle
- so studies aren’t conducted
- they just loan them

Question 14

Inductive argument

Answer 14

• inductive arguments are a type of argument where the premise supports the conclusion, but does not demonstrate or prove it
• support for the conclusion in inductive arguments can vary in degree and can be described as stronger or weaker
• an argument is stronger if it raises the probability of the conclusion more than a weaker argument
• in chapter 11, criteria for evaluating inductive arguments will be explained in more details
• examples of inductive arguments:
  • traffic slows to a crawl after 2pm on the Bay Bridge supports but does not prove that is does the same on the Golden Gate Bridge
  • if Alexandra rarely returns texts, it supports but does not prove that she probably rarely returns emails
  • the fact that nobody has run a mile in less than 3 minutes does not demonstrate or prove that nobody will ever run a mile in less than 3 minutes

Question 15

Sherlock Holmes

Answer 15

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Deductive

• the premise is “when you have eliminated the impossible”
• the conclusion is “whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

Inductive if you havent eliminated everything else

Question 16

Inference to the best explanation

Answer 16

• inference to the best explanation (IBE) is an argument that explains the cause of something (seeks the simplest and most likely)
• IBE is often used to determine the cause of something based on the best explanation or evidence available
• examples of IBE include determining that sleeping on a certain mattress caused a backache, or that a philosophy course caused improved test scores
• sometimes, IBE is referred to as “abduction” and is considered a form of inductive reasoning (in the context of our course)
• IBE is used to support a conclusion, not to prove it

Question 17

Balance of considerations

Answer 17

• balance of considerations reasoning involves weighing the pros and cons of thinking or doing something
• balance of probabilities?
• it often contains both deductive and inductive elements
• inductive arguments can be compared in terms of strength and weakness, while deductive arguments can be compared in terms of validity and soundness
• assigning weight to considerations can be difficult but not arbitrary
• most of the time, a major decision will be based on both types of reasoning

Probably that you most liked did it. Don’t need proof just reasonable doubt

The accused needs to provide proof they couldn’t have done it

Question 18

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 18

95% what you believe

• in common law, the highest standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” (inductive)
• in a criminal trial, evidence is presented to the court and the prosecutor and défense attorney make arguments connecting the evidence to the guilt or innocence of the defendant
• the jury must find the defendant not guilt unless the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
• proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a lower standard than deductive demonstration, which corresponds more to “beyond any possible doubt” (deductive)
  - becomes false
• in logic, a proposition is considered demonstrated when it is the conclusion of a sound argument, with true premises and impossible for the conclusion to be false
• in real life, when people say something has been demonstrated they may not mean it in the logicians sense of the word, but in the context of this text, when the author says something has been demonstrated, that is exactly what they mean

Question 19

Telling the difference between deductive and inductive arguments

Answer 19

Inductive (predict)
- specific observation
- general conclusion (may be true)

Deductive
- general rule
- specific conclusions (always true)

Abductive (a part of inductive)
- incomplete observation
- best prediction (may be true)

Question 20

Ethos, pathos, and logos Rhetorical triangle

Answer 20

• ethos is an appeal to the credibility or trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. It is an attempt to establish the speaker or writer as an authority on the subject and to gain the audience’s trust
• pathos is an appeal to the audience’s emotions. It is an attempt to create a connection with the audience and to evoke feelings such as sympathy, anger, or fear in order to persuade them
• logos is an appeal to reason or logic. It is an attempt to use facts, statistics, and evidence to make a logical argument and to persuade the audience through logical reasoning
  • nobody wants to hear their family member died
  • need credibility or trustworthiness
  • sympathetic or aware of other emotions
  • have logic to back you up (data or proof)

Question 21

Techniques for understanding arguments

Answer 21

1. Find the conclusion
2. Locate the reasons (premises) for the conclusion
3. Are they valid? Are they true?

What technique do you find helpful in properly recognizing and clarifying premises and conclusion?

Always search for the statement claim and conclusion, then the premise, is it true?