hello this is Dr stansil and this lecture is on views and reasons in ethics there are three main things I want you to learn how to do through this lecture I want you to be able to identify the view and reasons of an argument I want you to be able to identify what I call the anchor or Main moral reason of an argument and I want you to explain your answers so why you identified the view as the view the reasons as the reasons and the anchor as the anchor I'll start by defining some important vocabulary and I'm going to give quick definitions an argument is a type of persuasive speech or writing it's often used in ethics the basic elements of arguments are views and reasons so any argument that you read you can break it down into the view and the reasons when I say view I mean the main point being promoted or defended by the argument and reasons are statements in the argument that are meant to persuade us of the view so typically an argument will have one View and and numerous reasons although occasionally you might find an argument with two or three views occasionally you might find an argument with only one reason but again the norm is one View and multiple reasons here's an example of an argument and what I'd like you to do is pause the lecture read through this on your own time take as much time as you need and then when you ready hit play again and I'll talk about this argument in what you just read the view is anyone who can go vegetarian should the goal of this argument is to persuade the reader of this view um reasons all the statements that you read about suffering caused by the meat industry the moral imperative to suffering when we can the moral importance of having Integrity all of those are reasons for the view finally and this is um represented in the third bullet on the slide there was some content in what you read that wouldn't count as the view or reasons and just pause the lecture and take a look at that third bullet in what you read in ethics you will sometimes find content in an author's writing that is not their View and not a reason for their view so you need to be able to identify that as well I want you to be able to read an argument and identify the view and I'm going to give you a four-step method for doing that the first is to identify the topic of the argument just in general what's the topic second identify topic specific normative statements and I'll be defining what I mean by that on an upcoming slide third identify the most controversial topic specific normative statement that's probably going to be the view um but then in the fourth step you'll double check that by using this template blank because blank and I'll show you how to do this on an upcoming slide real quick how do you determine the topic of the argument look at what most of the statements address and in the piece that you read most of the statements have something to do with eating meat the ethics of eating meat is the topic of that argument working toward step two in the four-step process that I'm teaching you you need to be able to distinguish General statements from topic specific statements there are both kinds of statements in the argument that you just read so let me explain what I mean by General and topic specific statements of a general nature are about all people all places all situations and they will not mention the topic of the reading so we started by identifying the topic first as step one so that then that will help you identify the general statements and differentiate them from the topic specific statements topic specific statements use vocabulary tied directly to the topic of the reading in the argument that you read there are a couple General statements we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can this is a broad claim it's meant to apply in all situations not just in the area of diet and what we eat but in all areas of life so this this statement counts as general um and to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life this is also a general statement notice neither of these statements specifically mention an animal meat eating meat they are not topic specific these statements are an important part of the argument and they could be used in arguments on other topics okay um and then also in the bottom half of the slide I've listed many of the topic specific statements and I'll just talk about a couple of them here um the modern system of large scale meat production cost CES immense pain and suffering this statement mentions meat production it's topic specific animals are kept in uncomfortable cramp conditions dot dot dot this statement as well it's talking about animals and uh how they are made to suffer so I'll let you um pause the slide and read the rest of those bullets if you'd like and feel free to ask me questions about this uh this distinction General statements versus topic specific statements feel free to ask me questions about any part of the lecture moving toward you being able to perform step two of the process I need to explain what I mean by normative and the way I'll do that is by distinguishing normative claims from factual claims but first what is a claim when we talk about claims and ethics we are referring to complete declarative sentences that end with a period claims assert or state something normative claims say what a person or people generally should do are allowed to do or should not do Claims can I'm sorry normative Claims can also Express ideals that we should live up to standards we should shoot for duties responsibilities that we have also rights that we should respect virtues that we should aspire to normative claims broadly speaking Express what we should try to do not what we are doing there's just two different kinds of statements um factual claims May Express what we are doing and what the world is like currently whereas normative claims Express what we should aspire to what we should live up to so let me cover the bullets on factual claims these can also be called descriptive claims in ethics and in philosophy factual claims purport to describe how the world is was or will be and again they may describe what people did do are doing or will do in theory factual claims can be tested by checking evidence so we won't always have access to the evidence but in theory we could and factual claims may be false so a factual claim purports to describe how the world is was or will be um but that doesn't mean it it got it right but it's trying to okay so normative claims are all the claims of about how we should live what we ought to do what's right what's wrong what's good what's bad what's ideal what's less than ideal um in ethics The View being supported by any argument that we read will always be normative always so the most important claims in the field of Ethics are normative claims and this helps Define what we mean by ethics a couple examples of some normative claims don't lie you have a responsibility to your country children have a right to an education notice that all three of these examples tell us what we should or shouldn't do in some sense they don't tell us what we have done what we are doing um the third one children have a right to an education this does not mean children are being provided with an education it means we ought to provide them with an education and then some examples of factual claims education is expensive being separated from family causes suffering that's just a fact for many people many people believe divorce is morally allowable I threw this one in because when you see the phrase morally allowable you might think oh this is normative but actually this claim is about what many people believe and this is a factual claim that we can check there can be evidence about this we can pull people and see how many Americans um believe divorce is okay to do so the last one counts as factual the argument that you read earlier contains normative claims and factual claims this is really normal for arguments and applied ethics let me talk you through the normative claims we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life anyone who can a vegetarian should and then the factual claims are all claims about different forms of suffering and different reasons for suffering that animals experience in the meat industry I I won't read through all of these but statements like animals are kept in uncomfortable cramped conditions and cannot enjoy free movement or fresh air these are factual claims remember that factual claims might be false so the author might have made a mistake or they might be lying um or they might just not know so factual claims could be false but they purport to or they they try to State what is true about the world great so now that we've covered what I mean by topic specific and what I mean by normative I can talk to you about how to perform step two in which you identify the topic specific normative statements in the argument um to do that I want to show you all the normative statements again all the normative statements from the argument that you read we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life and anyone who can go vegetarian should now this argument had three normative statements only one of them is topic specific and that is the one underlined on the slide this is the view remember this whole four-step process is to enable you to identify the view of the argument this is the view um the view of any argument that we read in applied ethics is going to be normative and it's going to be topic specific the example that you read only has one topic specific normative statement but you may read an argument that has more than one topic specific normative statement and in that case you're going to want to try to identify the one that is the most controversial because what I see over and over in arguments in applied ethics is that the reasons are less controversial they're they're highly acceptable to most people and the view is controversial this is sort of an ideal in how we're going to persuade someone to think like we do and accept our point of you we're going to provide them with reasons that are not that controversial that most people will accept and then we build these reasons into a line of reasoning that gets them to accept a more controversial conclusion in the end okay so one way to identify the view and that's what we're working on right now is how to do that will be to find the topic specific normative statement that is the most controversial um and that is probably what the author is trying to convince you of so given the example um that I provid it it it only has one topic specific normative statement but I'm still going to talk about the other normative statements um as a way of talking about what I mean by controversial how do we identify the most controversial normative statement okay so let's look at we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can again this is normative um it's not highly controversial I think most people that you ask would say yeah we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can um do people debate this statement sure they do yes they definitely do um but it's not hotly debated you know um compare that to anyone who can go vegetarian should this is something people actively debate and you can find arguments in in social media and in um opinion pieces and newspapers and you can hear people talking about this socially um let's look at to have integrity we should apply all our principles or we should apply our principles in all areas of life this just says don't be a hypocrite be consistent um and this is something that almost everybody will agree with so it's really not very controversial at all um you compare that to anyone who can go vegetarian should definitely there's a big difference people are debating vegetarianism um actively debating it and we know that this is a contemporary moral issue because we see people talking about this issue in the world around us so um anyone who can go vegetarian should this is a controversial statement so for step three we would flag this one it's controversial it's topic specific it's normative once you think that you have identified the view I want you to have a way of double-checking it the reason is the argument that you read earlier in the lecture is quite simple in um future readings you may find arguments that are a lot more complicated and it might be really helpful to have a double check method okay so the double check method is to fill in this template blank because blank and then you ask yourself is is this statement I've created a good recap of what the author is arguing in this argument if yes then good you got the view right um okay the template is based on the fact that in an argument the reasons are there to support the view to support or Justify The View and we can reord any argument and put it in the form of view because reasons so this is how I develop the template how you're going to fill in the template put the view in the first blank and put another important normative claim from the argument in the second blank and then you read through it and you ask yourself is this a good recap of what the author argued so let me show you um so under the fourth bullet example the uh first sub bullet shows you what happens when I take anyone who can go vegetarian should and place it in the first blank anyone who can go vegetarian should because we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can I filled in the second blank with another important normative claim from the argument so when we read this new statement that I have created by filling in the template do we get a good recap of what the author argued that's the question and yes we do and since it worked and it's a good recap we have confirmed that anyone who can go vegetarian should is the view being supported by the argument and so now we're done and we've definitely got the view um in the last two bullets on the slide I want to show you what it would look like if I use this template and the use my double check method but I was actually wrong about the view so let's say that I thought to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life that that was the view um so I fill that into the first blank and then there's the because and then in the second blank I fill in another normative claim from the argument um to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life because anyone who can go vegetarian should is this a good recap of what the author argued no it's really not so that lets me know that I was wrong about the view I need to start over I need to backtrack I've talked about how to identify the view of an argument now I'll talk about how to identify the reasons well the first step is to identify the view once you have the view you've made a lot of progress then what you're going to do is test all all the other statements in that argument um using this template view because blank now I talked about some rationale for this on the previous slide and I'll show you this strategy in action on the next slide in the lecture but for now I do want to say that um in a very short argument you can go through and test all the statements in a longer argument that's going to be too time consuming so what you'll want to do there would be just test the main claims being made and not every single sentence again we're using the template blank because blank and we're filling in the first blank with the view um and then we're going to see when I fill in other statements in that second blank do I get something which is true to what the author was arguing um the most important examples here are the first two so let's look at the sentences I've created by filling in my template anyone who can go vegetarian should because more than 90% of Americans eat meat is this what the author argues is the author giving this idea that more than 90% of people eat meat as a reason for anyone who can go go a vegetarian should not really so more than 90% of Americans eat meat this is not a reason for the view this is background information this was something stated at the beginning of the paragraph that kind of kicks off the topic um the the thing is it doesn't matter how many people eat meat we 1% of Americans could eat eat meat and the author would still want to argue that eating meat is wrong they would just instead be saying we should keep on being vegetarian but they would still have all the same moral reasons um let's look at the third bullet anyone who can go vegetarian should because some argue animals were created for our use so eating meat is not a moral problem clearly this does not reflect the author's argument the author does not argue that people should go vegetarian because some people think animal were created for our use okay again that is other content that the author throws in it's introductory content but it's not a reason let's look at some reasons anyone who can go vegetarian should because the modern system of large scale meat production causes immense pain and suffering this statement reflects what the author argues this is an appropriate recap um so yes the modern system of large scale meat production causes immense pain and suffering this counts as a reason um I'm going to jump down to anyone who can go vegetarian should because we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can yes this reflects what the what the author argues we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can is a reason so what what I'm trying to do here is have you Ed this template one by one to look at Main claims that the office is making and to ask yourself is this claim a reason for the view is this claim a reason for the view um and it's really important that you remember you want you want to identify the author's reasons for their view now you may not agree with with anything that they're saying you may not think it's a valid reason but that's not what we're asking right now we want to identify the author's reasons for their view um okay so just to quickly recap when you use the template that I'm suggesting and you create these new statements that are made out of filling in the template with the author's claims um you want to ask for each of these statements does this reflect what the author argues and if it does great you have identified a reason of the argument and this argument has several reasons I want to say a little bit more about the the two tricky cases from the previous slide um the author says more than 90% of Americans eat meat why isn't that a reason for the view um you know that that number is factual I pulled this up online before writing this lecture um but the author doesn't revisit this this statistic throughout the argument it doesn't come up again um there's nothing in the rest of the argument that talks about the the number of people the massive amount of meat that Americans are consuming it just doesn't come up and if you look at the most important reasons that the author does give for their view those reasons would all stand even if nobody ate meat um well I guess if nobody ate meat we wouldn't have a meat industry so let me put it this way what if only 1% of Americans ate meat or only 10% um as long as the meat industry were still cruel and cause causing animal suffering then the rest of the argument would all still stand and and would function as is so we have to think critically about this state statement that more than 90% of Americans eat meat does this statement play an important role in the argument and in how the author supports their view no it doesn't in fact we could cut this statement and the argument would function just the same so that's another way to think about it too could I simply cut this statement without any loss of meaning any loss of impact and the argument and and yes you could cut this statement um and then the second one was about how other people argue that animals were created for our use so eating meat is not a moral problem this is what other people are arguing it's not what the author is arguing so um it's it's not given as a reason for their view now that we have identified the reasons of the argument I want to talk more specifically about moral reasons uh a moral reason is any reason in the argument that is normative in a moral sense remember normal normative claims tell us what we should or should not do what we're allowed to do what standards we should try to achieve and so on and um in looking for moral reasons we want to look for the normative statements that mention moral standards moral ideals moral good and bad um most of what we read uh in applied ethics will be um most of the normative claims that we come across will be normative in the moral sense and they'll and they'll be referencing morality so typically this is not too hard to identify um but what I'm really interested in doing is having you be able to identify the main or Central moral reason so this is the most important normative reason in the argument I'll talk more about this on the next slide I call the most important moral reason for the view the anchor and this is just my term that I've developed um I like the idea that an anchor provides stability and it's tied physically to a ship in um in the argument the anchor ties all of the other reasons together and it's the most important reason so how do we identify the anchor the most important reason of the argument first we identify the reasons and we find those reasons that are normative in a moral sense and for each one we consider what if I cut this reason but kept all the rest would that severely weaken the argument would it leave a big hole um I'll be walking you through this three-step process on the next couple slides for now I just want you to um consider that the anchor is usually General and not topic specific earlier we saw that the view is always topic specific and now we're seeing that the anchor which is the most important reason for the view is usually not topic specific it's usually General okay let's look at the two normative reasons in this argument we should reduce unnecessary suffering when we can and to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life um the underlying reason is the anchor and the other one is not the anchor and the way that I identified that was was um first of all I'm looking only at normative reasons and then I imagined what if I cut this reason from the argument would the argument function just as well or would it be severely weakened and if I cut the underlined reason from this argument it would be severely weakened but um in the second bullet if I cut that reason you know it wouldn't really severely harm the argument because this second bullet here second main bullet to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life that was sort of extra and I think if you'll go back and read the argument again you'll see that this normative reason added some extra oomph to the Anchor but it's not the anchor um you know in fact to have integrity we must apply our principles in all areas of life this reason is too broad to really support the conclusion by itself because it doesn't mention suffering it doesn't mention what principle we need to apply here you've arrived at the last slide of the lecture thank you for hanging in there I realize um this was a a long and highly technical lecture um at the end here I want to review our objectives so I want you to be able to identify the view and reasons of an argument when I ask you to do that in the class please use the how-to methods that I showed in the lecture I want you to be able to identify the anchor of an argument and again when I ask you to do that please use the how-to methods that I showed in this lecture I also want you to be able to explain your answers um a good explanation maybe around around 100 words maybe 100 to 150 words um you should use key vocabulary from the lecture and one way to remind yourself of that vocabulary is to scroll back through the slides and look at the slide headings um a lot of the key vocabulary that I would want to see you using is in those headings and I also want your brief explanation to show me that you use the how-to methods that I covered in the lecture and you're free to just say here's the method I used in identifying The View I did step one I did step two and talk a little bit about your thoughts on each of those steps each step in my step to stepbystep processes will always be something that you will write down and think through and you can put that content into your explanation