Phil 3010 A5 Moral Fallacies
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3010
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by ProfessorMoosePerson473
1 Academic Services, PHIL 3010: Ethics © 2017, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology A
SSIGNMENT 5:
M
ORAL F
ALLACIES
Learning Outcome •
Identify common moral fallacies Purpose This assignment gives you an opportunity to connect some of the ideas from the first three modules. Instructions 1.
This is an individual assignment that takes approximately one hour. 2.
Complete this assignment and submit it on or before the assigned due date. - If you submit your assignment early, please specify that it is your final submission. Otherwise I may not mark it until after the submission date. 3.
Write your answers on a separate word document. Not on this assignment sheet. 4.
Submit the assignment as a PDF file to the appropriate Dropbox in D2L Questions 1. Find an online post/comment. Copy it (either a screen capture or a link) and include it in your submission. Make sure that it is different from any of the ones mentioned in the course materials. 2. Identify at least 1 moral fallacy (from the list on the Moral Fallacies Handout) present in that post/comment. 3. Explain why that comment counts as the moral fallacy identified. How does your example show the features of the fallacy? (There is an example on the next page). In what way does it involve a moral issue?
2 Academic Services, PHIL 3010: Ethics © 2017, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology Marking Criteria 5 marks 4 marks 3 marks 2 marks 1 mark Responding to the question(s) Completely answers every part of the question(s) Answers most of the question(s) Answers some of the question(s) Answers a little bit of the question(s) Doesn’t really address the question(s) Using the concepts correctly Uses relevant concepts thoroughly and correctly Uses most relevant concepts correctly Uses some relevant concepts correctly Uses one or two concepts correctly Doesn’t use the concepts correctly Clarity of writing 1 point deducted for each error affecting clarity Example: (Neither this example nor any of the ones in the video for this module can be used for the assignment). “This post uses the fallacious argument called ‘False Moral Equivalence.’ The post compares voting for a political party which has policies which endanger children with supporting the murder of children. The first part, voting for a party which endangers children, is morally wrong, but it is as morally bad as murdering children. The two are put for as though they are equivalent, but, morally, they are not. That is why this counts as a ‘False Moral Equivalence ‘ Fallacy.”
3 Academic Services, PHIL 3010: Ethics © 2017, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology Late Policy No late papers accepted, and unexcused missed exams cannot be made up, except for -documented medical issues, -documented legal troubles, -documented family emergency. -equivalent Important note regarding APA format: There are multiple free online APA guides, including clear examples of how it ought to look. You have literally zero excuses for any errors in formatting in your submissions Important note regarding grammar: You have literally zero excuses for any errors in grammar in your submissions. Do not even consider submitting your people until after you have used one of the multitude of free online grammar checkers. Important note regarding Turnitin: You are able to submit your paper more than once
—
this will allow you to look at your plagiarism score and revise accordingly. If you have access to Turnitin through a source other than this class, *DO NOT submit your essay, including rough drafts, anywhere other than the drop box provided in this class*. If you do, Turnitin will recognize your essay and (mistakenly) think that it is 100% plagiarized
—
and I will have no way of knowing that it is not. A Nickel’s Worth of Free Advice This was written specifically related to your Term Paper assignment, but much of it applies to your other written assignments as well.
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
4 Academic Services, PHIL 3010: Ethics © 2017, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology Imagine that you are a scientist, trying to arrive at an answer to a question. You run your experiment, analyze the data, and arrive at your conclusion. With me so far? Is it okay to do the opposite? Is it okay to first arrive at your conclusion, AND THEN run an experiment and try to prove it? Of course not. The conclusion follows from the experiment and analysis of data. Not vice versa. Why? Because science is about the pursuit of truth. You follow where the evidence leads. Here's another alternative. You run the experiment, analyze the data, and arrive at a conclusion, but the conclusion makes you unhappy. Do you pretend the experiment didn't happen, and keep trying different experiments until one makes you happy and then announce that that one is the best experiment? Of course not. Why not? Because the truth is the truth independent
of whether it makes you happy. Scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. End of. You as philosophers are doing the same thing. Philosophy, like science, is the pursuit of truth. Assume
that when I'm reading your papers, I literally do not care what you believe. The philosophical equivalent of running an experiment is a philosophical argument. In your case, applying the ethical theories to the ethical dilemma that you selected. It does not matter what you want
to believe, it does not matter which conclusion to the dilemma would make you happiest, it does not matter what the most politically correct answer is. You follow where the argument leads. If, hypothetically, you are writing about the death penalty, and you have always felt
that it is immoral, if you apply your two theories and they both conclude that the death penalty is not
immoral, then that is your conclusion--whether you like your conclusion or not is irrelevant to your line of reasoning. Just as the scientist follows wherever the evidence, you, the philosopher, follow wherever the evidence leads. If you want to believe a particular conclusion, so select, apply, and interpret the ethical theories in order to support what you already believe, you are doing it wrong. You are not pursuing truth, you are trying to confirm what you already believe. You don't start with the conclusion and try to confirm it, any more that a scientist would.
5 Academic Services, PHIL 3010: Ethics © 2017, Southern Alberta Institute of Technology If you try to say "I am a conservative, therefore I think that X is wrong..." If you say "I'm a liberal, therefore I believe..." If you say I am a [insert religion here] therefore I disagree with... ...you are not doing philosophy, not exercising reason, you are succumbing to the confirmation bias. And you will lose marks.