Location

Brock University

Document Type

Paper

Start Date

15-5-1997 9:00 AM

End Date

17-5-1997 5:00 PM

Abstract

Critical thinking texts typically treat ethical reasoning as being in principle no different from non-moral types of reasoning. I argue that there are two distinctive types of ethical argument—those which appeal to principles of right and wrong conduct, and those which appeal to consequences—and that they cannot be properly understood or assessed on the basis of non-ethical models of reasoning. The failure to recognize this produces a simplistic understanding of ethical reasoning, and contributes to the view that ethical judgments are mere expressions of personal feelings.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

William Abbott, Commentary on Hughes

Reader's Reactions

William Abbott, Commentary on Hughes (May 1997)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 9:00 AM May 17th, 5:00 PM

Why Ethics Should be on the Critical Thinking Syllabus

Brock University

Critical thinking texts typically treat ethical reasoning as being in principle no different from non-moral types of reasoning. I argue that there are two distinctive types of ethical argument—those which appeal to principles of right and wrong conduct, and those which appeal to consequences—and that they cannot be properly understood or assessed on the basis of non-ethical models of reasoning. The failure to recognize this produces a simplistic understanding of ethical reasoning, and contributes to the view that ethical judgments are mere expressions of personal feelings.