.Evaluating ethical arguments
Here are several examples from Russow's chapter, which can be used to illustrate different ways of criticising a moral argument.
- Singer's famine relief argument (p. 13):
1. Death by starvation is a very bad thing.
2. By sending substantial amounts of money for famine relief, we can prevent death by starvation without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth.
3. If we can prevent something very bad from happening by doing X, and if we can do X without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, then we have a moral duty to do X.
C. Therefore we have a moral duty to send substantial amounts of money for famine relief.
- Compare the organ donation argument (p. 33):
1. The illness and death resulting from kidney failure is a very bad thing.
2. By giving one of our healthy kidneys to someone who needs it, we can prevent the illness and death resulting from kidney failure without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
3. If we can prevent something very bad from happening by doing X, and if we can do X without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, then we have a moral duty to do X.
C. We have a duty to give one of our kidneys to someone who needs it.
- Sam's argument (pp. 1 and 13): "I should not use traps to kill pigs because it will hurt them."
Compare the following reconstructions of Sam's argument:
1. Using snare traps to kill the feral pigs will hurt them.
C. So it is wrong to use snare traps to kill the feral pigs.1. Causing suffering is always wrong.
2. Using snare traps to kill the feral pigs will cause them suffering.
C. So it is wrong to use snare traps to kill the feral pigs.1. Causing avoidable suffering without overriding justification is wrong.
2. Using snare traps to kill the feral pigs will cause them avoidable suffering without overriding justification.
C. So it is wrong to use snare traps to kill the feral pigs.
| [Next] |