Ethics

PHIL 1100

Revised Office Hours

Now: Monday Thursday 1-2pm & Thursday
4:30-5:30 or by appointment

Types of Arguments
Argument
s

Abductive

NonDeductiv
e

Deductiv
e

Inductive

Analogica
l

Deductive Arguments
Truth of the premises guarantees the truth
of the conclusion
E.g.:
1. If it is raining, then the streets will be
wet.
2. It is raining.
3. Therefore, the streets will be wet

Inductive Arguments
Generalize from smaller sample.
Common in scientific investigation.
E.g.:
1. Every time Ive walked by that dog he didnt
try to bite me.
2. Therefore, next time I walk by the dog, he
wont try to bite me.

Abductive Arguments

Like inductive arguments, and unlike deductive

arguments, the truth of the premises of an abductive
argument do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Abductive arguments take an observation/series of

observations and infer the best explanation for it/them.

E.g.,

1.Jones was seen leaving the scene of the murder.

2. The victims blood was found n Joness car.
3. Jones had sent threatening emails to the victim.
Therefore, Jones did it.

Analogical Arguments
Takes two things that are similar in some respects and
concludes they must be similar in other respects.
E.g., Humans and rats have similar physiology.
Thalidomide is safe for rats. Therefore, thalidomide will
probably be safe in humans.

Reconstructing an Argument

Before we can critically assess an argument, we have

to determine what the argument actually is.

Determining the arguments conclusion and its

premises is called reconstructing an argument.

The aim of reconstructing an argument is to produce a

set of statements that represent the actual argument:
what are the premises? The conclusion? The
relationship between premises and conclusion?

Two Steps to Argument Reconstruction

1. What are the premises and conclusion?
2. What is the arguments structure?

Steps to Identify Premises and Conclusion

1. Identify the conclusion first. What is the authors main
point? Be on the look out for conclusion indicator
words like therefore and consequently.
2. Identify the premises. What reasons is the author
presenting to support the conclusion?
3. Identify any missing premises or conclusion. Are there
any premises the author is relying on that they have
not made explicit?

Missing Premises
1. Dougs birthday is tomorrow
Therefore, Bob should buy him a present.
. Does the mere fact that it is Dougs birthday give us
reason to conclude that Bob should buy him a present?

Practice
Identify the premises and conclusion in the
arguments on your handout. Supply any
missing premises or conclusion.

Longer Argument
Reconstruction
It just disgusts me how many people are willing to stick
with science and ignore all the spiritual aspects of life.
This is a sad feature of our timesand by the way, it
reminds me a little of the ancient Romans, who lived in a
very corrupt time. Heres what they said about the
emperor Nero, one of the late Roman emperors. He
fiddled while Rome burnedthat was it. Well, anyways,
the point I want to make here is that science does not
provide a sufficient guide for human life, because it does
not provide us with values. We need values to live our
lives by.

Longer Argument
Reconstruction
1. Science does not provide us with values.
2. We need values to live our lives by.
Therefore, science does not provide us with a sufficient
guide for human life.
. Whats the arguments structure?
. Is it any good?