CIS 492/PHIL492, Spring 2000. Unjustified moral & ethical arguments

Some basic reasons for moral and ethical opinions, and their implicit or explicit arguments, to be unjustified.

• Partiality; treat like things alike (e.g. an abortion vs. an execution-style assassination);
• (empirical) ignorance (e.g. low radiation vs. inhaling low-dose radioactive dust);
• flawed logic: (1) "correct" argument based on flawed premise; (2) correct premises used in a flawed argument;
• over-simplifying the issue (e.g. "Life is a b****, then you die.");
• unreliable moral principle used in the argument (e.g. the one used to justify that thieves get their hands chopped off);
• conceptual confusion of terminology (e.g. "privacy" can mean many different things);
• lack of vividness; (e.g. discussing capital punishment without having ever read a witness account of an execution).

Filtering gut moral reactions through these points above should result in so-called Considered Moral Judgments.

Consider: A reputed arts dealer in New York City has a client who means to purchase a "Van Gogh" at ANY price, much to the delight of the dealer. However, as they discuss possible paintings for sale, the client reveals his intention of destroying the painting in private soon after the transaction has been completed.

Should the dealer arrange for that sale, given that he could do so?