Touchstone 4 Contrasting Normative Arguments In Standard Form

The world of ethics is a landscape of complex arguments and varying perspectives. Navigating this terrain requires a structured approach to understand and evaluate different viewpoints. When we examine normative arguments, which assert how things should be, rather than how they are, it’s essential to dissect them meticulously. This is where the standard form comes in, allowing us to clearly contrast these arguments and identify their strengths and weaknesses. Touchstone 4 offers a particularly useful framework for understanding these contrasts.

Understanding Normative Arguments

Normative arguments are pervasive in our daily lives. They are the basis of moral judgments, legal principles, and social policies. Unlike descriptive arguments, which aim to describe the world as it is, normative arguments prescribe how the world ought to be. These arguments rely on premises that contain value judgments or moral principles.

Key Components of a Normative Argument:

• Premises: These are statements that provide reasons or evidence to support the conclusion. In normative arguments, at least one premise must be a normative statement.
• Conclusion: This is the statement that the argument is trying to establish. It asserts a moral, ethical, or value-based claim.
• Normative Statements: These express value judgments, moral principles, or ethical standards. They use terms like "should," "ought," "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong."

Example of a Simple Normative Argument:

• Premise 1: Lying is wrong. (Normative statement)
• Premise 2: Sarah lied. (Descriptive statement)
• Conclusion: Therefore, Sarah did something wrong. (Normative statement)

The strength of a normative argument depends on the validity of its structure and the acceptability of its premises. If the premises are true and the argument is logically sound, the conclusion is more likely to be accepted.

The Standard Form

The standard form is a method of presenting arguments in a clear, structured format. It involves listing each premise and the conclusion as separate, numbered statements. This format helps to reveal the logical structure of the argument and makes it easier to evaluate.

Steps to Convert an Argument to Standard Form:

1. Identify the Conclusion: Determine the main point the argument is trying to establish.
2. Identify the Premises: Find the reasons or evidence offered to support the conclusion.
3. Number the Premises: Assign a number to each premise.
4. Write the Conclusion: State the conclusion clearly after the premises.
5. Indicate the Inference: Use a word or symbol (e.g., "Therefore," "Thus," or a horizontal line) to indicate that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Example of Converting an Argument to Standard Form:

Original Argument: "Since all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, Socrates is mortal."

Standard Form:

1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is a human.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

By presenting arguments in this structured format, we can more easily assess their validity and soundness. This is particularly useful when comparing contrasting normative arguments.

Touchstone 4: A Framework for Contrasting Normative Arguments

Touchstone 4 provides a practical framework for analyzing and contrasting normative arguments by focusing on specific ethical dilemmas. This framework typically involves analyzing different perspectives on a contentious issue, identifying the underlying values, and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each argument.

Key Components of Touchstone 4:

• Ethical Dilemma: A situation presenting a choice between conflicting moral principles or values.
• Stakeholders: Individuals or groups affected by the ethical dilemma.
• Normative Arguments: Different viewpoints arguing for particular courses of action based on ethical principles.
• Evaluation: Assessment of the arguments’ strengths, weaknesses, and implications.

To illustrate how Touchstone 4 can be used to contrast normative arguments in standard form, let’s consider a complex ethical dilemma:

Ethical Dilemma: Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos

Genetic engineering of human embryos raises significant ethical questions. On one hand, it promises to eliminate genetic diseases and enhance human capabilities. On the other hand, it raises concerns about playing God, creating designer babies, and exacerbating social inequalities.

Stakeholders:

• Parents: Seeking to ensure healthy offspring.
• Children: Potentially affected by genetic modifications.
• Scientists: Conducting research and developing technologies.
• Society: Impacted by the social and ethical implications of genetic engineering.

Now, let's examine two contrasting normative arguments regarding genetic engineering, presented in standard form.

Argument 1: Pro-Genetic Engineering

Premise 1: Parents have a moral obligation to provide their children with the best possible start in life. Premise 2: Genetic engineering can eliminate genetic diseases and enhance human capabilities, thereby improving a child’s start in life. Premise 3: If a technology can significantly improve a child’s life and parents have an obligation to provide such improvements, then parents should utilize that technology. Conclusion: Therefore, parents should utilize genetic engineering to eliminate genetic diseases and enhance human capabilities.

Argument 2: Anti-Genetic Engineering

Premise 1: Human beings have intrinsic value and should not be treated as commodities. Premise 2: Genetic engineering risks treating human embryos as commodities to be designed and manipulated. Premise 3: Treating human beings as commodities violates their intrinsic value and is morally wrong. Conclusion: Therefore, genetic engineering of human embryos is morally wrong.

Contrasting the Arguments:

By presenting these arguments in standard form, we can clearly see the contrasting premises and values. The pro-genetic engineering argument emphasizes the duty of parents to improve their children's lives through technological advancements. In contrast, the anti-genetic engineering argument highlights the risk of commodifying human life and violating intrinsic human value.

Evaluation:

• Argument 1 (Pro):

  • Strengths: Appeals to the widely accepted value of parental care and the desire to improve children’s lives.
  • Weaknesses: Ignores potential risks and unintended consequences of genetic engineering. It also assumes that genetic enhancement is always beneficial.

• Argument 2 (Anti):

  • Strengths: Protects the inherent dignity and value of human life, cautioning against potential dehumanization.
  • Weaknesses: May be seen as overly conservative, potentially hindering medical progress that could alleviate suffering.

Further Considerations:

When contrasting these arguments, it's essential to consider additional factors, such as:

• Potential Harms: What are the possible negative consequences of genetic engineering?
• Social Justice: Could genetic engineering exacerbate existing inequalities?
• Long-Term Effects: What are the potential long-term impacts on human evolution and society?

By systematically analyzing these arguments in standard form and considering these factors, we can better understand the ethical complexities of genetic engineering and make informed decisions.

Another Example: Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is another area rife with contrasting normative arguments. Let's consider the following arguments in standard form.

Argument 1: Pro-Euthanasia

Premise 1: Individuals have a right to autonomy and self-determination, including the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies. Premise 2: Euthanasia is an exercise of this right to self-determination, allowing individuals to choose when and how to end their suffering. Premise 3: If individuals have a right to self-determination and euthanasia is an exercise of this right, then individuals should have the option of euthanasia. Conclusion: Therefore, individuals should have the option of euthanasia.

Argument 2: Anti-Euthanasia

Premise 1: All human life is sacred and should be protected. Premise 2: Euthanasia involves intentionally ending a human life. Premise 3: Intentionally ending a human life violates its sacredness and is morally wrong. Conclusion: Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong.

Contrasting the Arguments:

In this case, the pro-euthanasia argument prioritizes individual autonomy and the right to self-determination. The anti-euthanasia argument emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the moral wrongness of intentionally ending it.

Evaluation:

• Argument 1 (Pro):

  • Strengths: Respects individual autonomy and the right to make personal choices about one’s life.
  • Weaknesses: May overlook potential risks of abuse, coercion, and the impact on vulnerable individuals.

• Argument 2 (Anti):

  • Strengths: Upholds the value of human life and provides a safeguard against potential abuse and devaluation of life.
  • Weaknesses: May disregard the suffering and autonomy of individuals who are terminally ill and wish to end their lives.

Further Considerations:

Additional factors to consider include:

• Suffering: What is the extent and nature of the individual’s suffering?
• Palliative Care: Are there alternative options for alleviating suffering, such as palliative care?
• Legal Safeguards: What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and ensure that euthanasia is only performed with informed consent?

Benefits of Using Standard Form

Using the standard form to analyze normative arguments offers several benefits:

• Clarity: It helps to clarify the structure and components of the argument.
• Objectivity: It promotes a more objective evaluation by focusing on the logical structure and premises.
• Comparison: It facilitates the comparison of different arguments by highlighting their contrasting premises and conclusions.
• Critical Thinking: It encourages critical thinking by requiring a systematic and thorough analysis of the arguments.

Common Fallacies in Normative Arguments

When evaluating normative arguments, it is important to be aware of common fallacies that can weaken their validity. Some of the most common fallacies include:

• Appeal to Emotion: Using emotional appeals instead of logical reasoning to persuade the audience.
• Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
• Straw Man: Misrepresenting the opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.
• False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when there are other possibilities.
• Appeal to Authority: Citing an authority figure who is not an expert on the topic.

By recognizing these fallacies, we can avoid being misled by flawed arguments and make more informed judgments.

Conclusion

Analyzing and contrasting normative arguments is essential for navigating complex ethical dilemmas. By using the standard form and considering different perspectives, we can better understand the underlying values and principles at stake. Touchstone 4 provides a valuable framework for this process, encouraging us to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and make informed decisions. Whether considering genetic engineering, euthanasia, or other contentious issues, the ability to critically analyze normative arguments is crucial for promoting ethical reasoning and responsible decision-making. Understanding and applying these principles empowers us to engage more thoughtfully in ethical debates and contribute to a more just and equitable society.