This document provides information on critical thinking and logical fallacies as they relate to making ethical arguments. It defines critical thinking as evaluating evidence, considering multiple perspectives, and using sound reasoning rather than just having an opinion. Logical fallacies are faulty logic that weaken arguments, such as appeals to emotion, false authority, slippery slopes, and straw man arguments. Examples are given to illustrate different types of logical fallacies. The document emphasizes the importance of fair-mindedness and avoiding logical fallacies when evaluating ethical issues.

1. “A man who makes an assertion puts
forward a claim--- a claim on our attention
and to our belief.”
–Stephen Toulmin
• You will be evaluating, discussing ethical issues
this semester based on learned ethical
frameworks.
• At the end of the semester, you will be using
these skills to make an ethical argument.

2. There is a lot of gray area with ethics and
no solid formula that works every time. It
takes a lot of critical thinking and sound
reasoning to consider all the nuances,
possible alternatives, and consequences to
stakeholders in ethical dilemmas.
What are the components of critical
thinking?

3. Critical Thinking is…
 Asking probing or
critical questions
 Making connections
and synthesizing
information
 Evaluating the
credibility of evidence
 Considering multiple
opinions,
stakeholders, and
solutions
 Using fair logic and
reasoning
Critical Thinking is
not…
 Criticizing everything
 Just having an opinion
 Being Vehemently One-
Sided
 Merely comprehending a
text, opinion, or issue
 Being logically unsound
or unfair

4. What counts as an argument?
Definition 1-- a chain of reasoning designed to prove something, consisting of
one or more premises and a conclusion. The conclusion is what we are
trying to prove and the premises are the considerations that are supposed
to prove it.
Definition 2 -- giving logical, fair and true reasons to change or influence the
way someone thinks, feels, or acts regarding a particular issue

5. Moral/Ethical Claims:
 Ask the question, “How right or wrong is it?”
 Judge human behavior by applying a code of conduct based
on a religious or philosophical belief system

6. Moral/ethical claims emerge from:
(1) matching an existing standard to a situation or behavior
(2) establishing a moral/ethical standard when none previously exists
(3) resolving conflicts between competing moral/ethical standards
(for example, between mercy killing or allowing someone to suffer)
Many other types of claims deal with ethical issues. Ethical arguments
MUST make ethical recommendations.

7. Identifying Ethical Claims
Try to identify if which of the following is an ethical
claim and which is not:
1. A mouse is not a human being. Therefore, there is
no scientific justification for experimenting on mice
in order to find out things about people.
2. It is argued, possibly with some justification, that
skinny models provide unhealthy images for
adolescents. But this does not mean that they
should be criticized for presenting this image. No
supermodel is chastised for smoking, a habit that is
far more likely to kill her, and her admirers, than
slimness. Nor do we persecute ballerinas, many of
whom are not just anorexic, but crippled.

8. Identifying Ethical Claims
 Ethical arguments deal with “should’s” and
“ought’s.” They make moral
recommendations for what should or
should not be done in a situation.
 We should not … because
 What follows the “because” should be
based on sound reasons and evidence,
not emotion.

9. Logical Fallacies
While it may seem that emotion plays a
strong role in moral choices, it is
important to hone strong reasoning and
logical to examine ethical dilemmas and
make ethical choices.

10. Logical Fallacies
 Essentially these are logical untruths or faulty
logic. The terms refers to inaccurate or
misleading information that weakens an
argument.
 They can be used maliciously, relying on
audience ignorance of the issue, audience trust,
or the believe that the audience will not or
cannot look further into the evidence.
 Ethical arguments are prone to fallacies of
distorting, distracting, and omitting evidence
especially when strong emotions and values are
involved.

11. Types of Fallacies
 Emotion: Relying solely or unfairly on the
audience’s emotions – guilt, insecurity, anger,
fear, etc.
 Authority or Trust – focusing solely on
character assassination or claiming authority
where none exists
 Logic- Distorting, Distracting or Omitting
Evidence

12. Logical Fallacy
Practice

13. Practice 1
My roommate said her philosophy class
was hard, and the one I’m in is hard, too.
All philosophy classes must be hard!”
What’s wrong here?
 Two people’s experiences are, in this
case, not enough on which to base a
conclusion.

14. Generalization
 Definition: Making assumptions about a whole
group or range of cases based on a sample
that is inadequate (usually because it is
atypical or too small). Stereotypes about
people (“librarians are shy and smart,”
“wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a
common example of the principle underlying
hasty generalization.

15. Practice 2
“Animal experimentation reduces our respect for
life. If we don’t respect life, we are likely to be more
and more tolerant of violent acts like war and
murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in
which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will
be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible
consequence, we should make animal
experimentation illegal right now.”
What’s wrong here?

16.  Problem 1: Since animal experimentation has
been legal for some time and civilization has
not yet ended, it seems particularly evident
that this chain of events won’t necessarily
take place.
 Problem 2: Even if we believe that
experimenting on animals reduces respect for
life, and loss of respect for life makes us more
tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on
the hillside at which things stop—we may not
slide all the way down to the end of
civilization.

17. Slippery slope
 Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain
reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence,
will take place, but there’s really not enough
evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts
that if we take even one step onto the “slippery
slope,” we will end up sliding all the way to the
bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop partway
down the hill.

18. Practice 3
Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal
parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would
be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so
restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.
What’s wrong here?
 Guns and hammers share certain features- having metal
parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for
violence.
 However, these are not the ones at stake in deciding
whether to restrict guns.
 Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used
to kill large numbers of people at a distance- a feature
hammers do not share.

19. Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely
on an analogy between two or
more objects, ideas, or situations.
If the two things being compared
aren’t really alike in the relevant
respects, the analogy is weak.

20. Analogies Are Tricky
 If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind
between almost any two things in the world:
 “My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get
bigger when it rains and they’re both kind of murky.”
 So the mere fact that you can draw an analogy between two
things doesn’t prove much, by itself.

21. Example Analogy: Abortion
 Arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human
beings and then argue that treatment that would violate
the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of
fetuses.
 The strength of these depends on the strength of the
analogy: Do adult humans and fetuses share the
properties that give adult humans rights?
1. Strong Analogy: If the property that matters is having a
human genetic code or the potential for a life full of
human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share
that property.
2. Weak Analogy: If the property is being self-aware,
rational, or able to survive on one’s own, adult humans
and fetuses don’t share it.

22. Practice 4
“We should abolish the death penalty. Many
respected people, such as actor Ryan Gosling,
have publicly stated their opposition to it.”
What’s wrong here?
 While Ryan Gosling may be an authority on
acting, there’s no particular reason why
anyone should be moved by his political
opinions.

23. False appeal to authority
 Definition: References to respected sources or
authorities and explaining their positions on the
issues are often used appropriately to strengthen
an argument.
 However, a false appeal to authority tries to get
readers to agree with a conclusion simply by
impressing them with a famous name or appealing
to a supposed authority, who really isn’t much of an
expert.

24. Practice 5
“Same-sex marriages are immoral; 70% of
Americans think so.”
What’s wrong here?
While American majority opinion might be relevant
in determining what laws we should have, it
certainly doesn’t determine moral vs. immoral.
Ex. At one time a substantial number of Americans
were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was
not evidence that it was moral.

25. Ad populum – “To the people”
 There are many versions of the ad populum
fallacy.
 What they all have in common is that the
arguer takes advantage of the desire most
people have to be liked and to fit in with
others.
 One of the most common versions is the
Bandwagon Fallacy, in which the arguer tries
to convince the audience to do or believe
something because everyone else (supposedly)
does.

26. Practice 6
“Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down
and put up a new building, or we continue to risk
students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s
safety, so we must tear the building down.”
What’s wrong here?
 The argument neglects to mention the possibility
that we might repair the building or find some way
to protect students from the risks in question—for
example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape,
perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms

27. False dichotomy
 Definition: The arguer sets up the situation so
it looks like there are only two choices. The
arguer then eliminates one, so it seems that
we are left with only one logical option: the
one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first
place.
 Remember, often there are really many
different options, not just two, and those
options are more complex.

28. Practice 7
“Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone
who looks at it! But such harsh measures are surely
inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans
should be left in peace.”
What’s wrong here?
 The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated.
In fact, most feminists do not propose an outright “ban” on
porn or any punishment for those who merely view it or
approve of it; often, they propose some restrictions on
particular things like child porn, or propose to allow people
who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers—not
viewers—for damages.

29. Straw Man
Definition: In the straw man fallacy, the arguer
sets up a weak version of the opponent’s
position and tries to score points by knocking it
down.
 It is appropriate to anticipate and respond in
advance to opposing views.
 Just as being able to knock down a straw man
(like a scarecrow) isn’t very impressive,
defeating a watered-down version of an
opposing argument isn’t very impressive
either.

30. Cherry-Picking
 also known as “card-stacking”
 Ignoring 1) evidence that disproves your
argument 2) opposing arguments, or valid
points or concerns of opposing argument
in order to make yours more appealing
 All arguments (ethical issues included)
should be fair-minded and truthful.

31. Fair-mindedness
“Opinions about ethical issues are often so strongly held
that many people find it difficult to give any
consideration at all to opposing views. Yet on matters of
great importance to our lives … we should be prepared to
understand the views of those who disagree with us, and
to attempt to judge between opposing views in an
unbiased way.”
What does it mean to be fair-minded? How would you
define it?

32. Fair-mindedness Cont.
 Having a lack favoritism toward a particular side
 Assessing your own moral viewpoint according to the
same standards by which you assess those of others –
you must be self-critical.
 Making judgments without preference to one’s own
interest, advantage, or feeling.
 Making thoughtful choices about the
appropriateness of personal emotion in the
situation
 We cannot separate emotion from ethical choices, but
we can choose when our own feelings are helpful or
hurtful, or when they are misplaced or wrongly
influenced.

33. Final Practice: Visual Ethical Arguments
With your group…
1. Decide what is logically flawed in this ethical
argument for vegetarianism. You may be able to
find several things.
2. Discuss what some potentially logical reasons
might be for an ethical argument for
vegetarianism.

35. Avoiding Logical Fallacies in Ethical
Arguments:
1. Identifying or using valid reasons (ones you have good
reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue
at hand)
2. Making sure reasons provide factual and logical evidence
for your conclusion or thesis
3. Verifying that only the most important or relevant
aspects of the issue have been addressed (that is, that the
premises and conclusion focus on what is really important
to the issue)
4. Avoiding premises that are so emotional, zealous, or
sweeping that they cannot be supported with sound logic.
5. Checking for fair acknowledgement and representation of
multiple opinions or courses of action.