Critical Thinking Touchstone 4 Template copy 2

.docx

School

Strayer University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jun 6, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by DukeShark4370

Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone Page 1 Name: Bill Martinez Date: February 1 st , 2024 Critical Thinking Final Touchstone In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do not write as an essay! Part I. Select your topic and arguments. a. Choose a topic from the following list: ● Should people eat meat? ● Should marijuana be legal? ● Should pet cats be kept indoors? ● Should zoos exist? ● Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop? ● Should seat belt wearing be mandatory? ● Should children be required to take gym/PE classes? ● Should public roads be used for private car parking? b. Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both of them. The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be: ● People should not eat meat. ● People should eat meat. But it would also be acceptable to choose: ● People should reduce their meat consumption. ● People need not reduce their meat consumption. c. These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone Page 2 Conclusion #1: Wearing a seatbelt should not be mandatory. Conclusion #2: Wearing a seatbelt should be mandatory. Part II. Write your arguments in standard form. a. Standard form is a series of numbered statements. Each should be one sentence long. The final statement is the conclusion. You do not need to label statements as premises or conclusions ; it is understood by the form of the argument that all statements are premises except the final one, which is always the conclusion. b. There should be at least one normative statement (stating what people should do) and at least one descriptive statement (describing something to be true). Statements that predict outcomes or describe what people believe are not normative. A good way to determine if a statement is normative is looking for verb phrases like “should,” “ought,” or “have an obligation to.” c. If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference. This can be an APA citation or just a link to a reputable website or publication. Here is a helpful resource for APA references. d. Place an asterisk (*) by the normative premise(s) that support the conclusion. e. Do not use your conclusion as a premise. This is the fallacy of “begging the question.” f. There may be a subargument within your argument, a conclusion reached by premises that then becomes a conclusion that supports your premise. If there is a subargument, underline the subconclusion . g. The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument (as given above) and begin with the word “therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1. h. The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements. Argument #1 Should seat belt wearing be mandatory? 1) It’s their vehicle so it should be a personal choice. * 2) Busses and public transport don’t have seatbelts. 3) People can still die when wearing a seatbelt. 4) They are uncomfortable and you should not have an obligation to wear it. * 5) Therefore, wearing a seatbelt should not be mandatory. Argument #2 Should seat belt wearing be mandatory? 1) Wearing the seatbelt can lower your chances of fatal injury by up to 45% (1).
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone Page 3 2) You can get fined for not wearing a seatbelt. 3) *A responsible driver has an obligation to do so. 4) *Airbags alone are not enough to save you; seatbelt should also be worn (1). 5) Therefore, wearing a seatbelt should be mandatory. Source: (1) https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts#:~:text=In%202021%2C %2026%2C325%20passenger%20vehicle,seat%20belts%2C%20in %202017%20alone.&text=1. 1. Are your arguments deductive or inductive? Explain what the difference is between the two and why you see your argument as inductive or deductive. (2 sentences) Both of my arguments are deductive. The reason for this is because all my premises support my conclusion to make it true. They are general premises working towards a specific conclusion. 2. Identify either a deductive rule of inference or an inductive practice that helps support your conclusion. Explain what the rule or practice means and how it was used to reach your conclusion. (2-3 sentences) I have identified the arguments to use inductive practice to support my conclusion. The reason for this is because both arguments fully support the conclusion however, they don’t necessarily make the conclusion definitively true. The arguments support a most likely conclusion. 3. What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the moral framework and how adopting that perspective leads to your conclusion. The two arguments do not need to follow the same moral theory. (4-6 sentences) For the normative conclusion that seat belts should not be mandatory the moral frameworks would be utilitarian. The main reason for this is because this line of ethics is about utility, and about the most advantageous outcome of the ethical choices. It focuses on the outcome more so than the process; therefore, providing the person in the argument with the most pleasurable conclusion. The argument with the conclusion that seatbelts ought to be worn is deontological because it is the persons duty to wear it and it is the right thing to do. 4. What assumptions are you making that may compromise your arguments? Use language from the tutorials that identify cognitive and unconscious biases. This should be about your experience, not a general response about potential biases. (4-6 In the arguments I assumed that it is a personal vehicle. Because I pay for my vehicle and the insurance, there is this unconscious bias that I make the rules in it. Since it is mine, I shouldn’t have to do something in it because the law and others are telling me to do so. I also don’t take children into account in my argument. This
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help