Does capital punishment deter crime?
ASSESSING NONMORAL PREMISES
Sometimes the sticking point in a moral argument is not a moral premise but a nonmoral one—a claim about a nonmoral state of affairs. Often people on both sides of a dispute may agree on a moral prin- ciple but differ dramatically on the nonmoral facts. Usually these facts concern the consequences of an action or the characteristics of the parties involved. Does pornography cause people to commit sex crimes? Does capital punishment deter crime? Is a depressed person competent to decide whether to commit suicide? When does a fetus become viable? Are African Americans underrepresented among executives in corporate America? Does gay marriage undermine the institution of heterosex- ual marriage? These and countless other questions arise—and must be answered—as we try to develop and analyze moral arguments.
The most important principle to remember is that nonmoral premises, like all premises, must be supported by good reasons. As we have already seen, simply believing or asserting a claim does not make it so. We should insist that our own nonmoral premises and those of others be backed by reliable scientific research, the opinions of trustworthy experts, pertinent examples and analogies, histori- cal records, or our own background knowledge (claims that we have excellent reasons to believe).
Ensuring that nonmoral premises are sup- ported by good reasons is sometimes difficult but always worth the effort. The process begins by simply asking, “Is this statement true?” and “What reasons do I have for believing this?”
In your search for answers, keep the following in mind:
1. Use reliable sources. If you have reason to doubt the accuracy of a source, do not use it. Doubt it if it produces statements you know to be false, ignores reliable data (such as the latest scien- tific research), or has a track record of presenting inaccurate information or dubious arguments. Make sure that any experts you rely on are in fact experts in their chosen field. In general, true experts have the requisite education and training, the relevant experience in making reliable judg- ments, and a good reputation among peers.
Probably every major moral issue discussed in this book is associated with numerous advocacy groups, each one devoted to promoting its par – ticular view of things. Too often the information
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATING MORAL ARGUMENTS Á 55
’ QUICK REVIEW • Look for an implicit premise when (1) there
seems to be a logical gap between premises or between premises and the conclusion; and (2) the missing material is not a commonplace assumption.
• Any supplied unstated premise should be valid or strong, plausible, and fitting.
• A typical moral argument has at least one moral premise and at least one nonmoral premise.
• The easiest way to identify implied premises in a moral argument is to treat it as deductive.
• Test moral premises with counterexamples.
moral statement—A statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one’s motive or character) is good or bad.
nonmoral statement—A statement that does not affirm that an action is right or wrong or that a person (or one’s motive or character) is good or bad.
213006_03_039-064_r1_el.qxp:213006_03_039-064_r1_el 8/3/15 9:46 AM Page 55
coming from many of these groups is unreliable. Do not automatically assume otherwise. Double- check any information you get from them with sources you know are reliable and see if it is sup- ported by scientific studies, expert opinion, or other evidence.
2. Beware when evidence conflicts. You have good reason to doubt a statement if it conflicts with other statements you think are well supported. If your nonmoral premise is inconsistent with another claim you believe is true, you cannot simply choose the one you like best. To resolve the conflict, you must evaluate them both by weighing the evidence for each one.
3. Let reason rule. Deliberating on moral issues is serious business, often involving the questioning of cherished views and the stirring of strong feel- ings. Many times the temptation to dispense with reason and blindly embrace a favorite outlook is enormous. This common—and very human— predicament can lead us to veer far from the relevant evidence and true nonmoral premises. Specifically, we may reject or disregard evidence that conflicts with what we most want to believe. We may even try to pretend that the conflicting evidence actually supports our preconceptions. Yet resisting the relevant evidence is just one side of the coin. We may also look for and find only evidence that supports what we want to believe, going around the world to confirm our prejudices.
Our best chance to avert these tendencies is to try hard to be both critical and fair—to make a delib- erate effort to examine all the relevant evidence, the information both for and against our preferred beliefs. After all, the point of assessing a moral argu- ment is to discover the truth. We must be brave enough to let the evidence point where it will.