Normative Arguments

A normative argument is an argument that an action should be done based on reasons for doing it

Outline

  1. Normative Arguments
  2. Kinds of Normative Arguments
    1. Deontic Arguments
    2. Expected-value Arguments
    3. Analogical Normative Arguments
  3. Decision-Making
  4. Addendum

Normative Arguments

  • A normative argument is an argument whose conclusion implies that an action should (or shouldn’t) be done based on reasons for (or against) doing it. For example, arguments that an action should be done or is obligatory, permissible or wrong.

Kinds of Normative Arguments

Deontic Arguments

  • A deontic argument is an argument that an action should be done based on a principle. For example:
    • You shouldn’t cheat because it’s wrong.

Expected-value Arguments

  • An expected-value argument is an argument that an action should be done based on the probability and desirability of its projected consequences. For example:
    • You shouldn’t cheat because you might get caught.

Analogical Normative Arguments

  • An analogical normative argument is an argument that an action should be done because it’s just like an action that clearly ought to be done. For example:
    • You shouldn’t cheat because it’s just like surreptitiously changing your grade on the instructor’s spreadsheet.

Deontic Arguments

  • A deontic argument is an argument that an action should be done based on a principle.

Examples

  • Shoplifting
    1. Shoplifting is wrong.
    2. You shouldn’t do what’s wrong.
    3. Therefore you shouldn’t shoplift.
  • Capital Punishment
    1. The punishment should fit the crime.
    2. Some crimes are so heinous the only fitting punishment is execution.
    3. Therefore for some crimes the only fitting punishment is execution.
  • Keeping a promise
    1. Promises should be kept.
    2. Abe promised his brother he would take him to the zoo.
    3. Therefore Abe should take his brother to the zoo.
  • Capital Punishment
    • “Death is the only final and irreversible criminal punishment.  As DNA exonerations vividly show, humans and their governments are fallible and corruptible.  Fallible governments should refrain from inflicting irreversible punishments.”
    • Argument Reconstructed
      1. Fallible governments should refrain from inflicting irreversible punishments
      2. Capital punishment is an irreversible punishment.
      3. All governments are fallible.
      4. Therefore, governments should refrain from inflicting capital punishment.

Principles, Other Things Being Equal

  • Principles are typically true other things being equal. Thus, “killing is wrong” means killing is wrong, other things being equal. Alternatively:
    • killing in itself is wrong,
    • killing is wrong considered by itself,
    • killing is prima facie wrong.
  • This sheds light on the curious argument:
    • Killing is wrong.
    • Killing in self-defense is killing.
    • Therefore killing in self-defense is wrong.
  • Which is equivalent to:
    • Killing is wrong, other things being equal.
    • Killing in self-defense is killing.
    • Therefore killing in self-defense is wrong, other things being equal.
  • The argument fails because it’s invalid to make an inference within the scope of “other things being equal.” Just as it’s invalid to make an inference within the scope of “believes:”
    • Smith believes that killing is wrong.
    • Smith believes that killing in self-defense is killing.
    • Therefore, Smith believes that killing in self-defense is wrong.
  • The rationale for keeping other things equal is that reasoning about a complex and uncertain world is messy and difficult. A way of facilitating such reasoning is to simplify matters by keeping other things equal. Like putting reasoning into a box.
  • Economics, for example, is a complicated subject. Thus the fundamental law of supply and demand is expressed other things being equal. As the Britannica puts it:
    • “In basic economic analysis, all factors except the price of the commodity are often held constant; the analysis then involves examining the relationship between various price levels and the maximum quantity that would potentially be purchased by consumers at each of those prices.”
  • View Law of Supply and Demand

Expected-value Arguments

  • An expected-value argument is an argument that an action should be done based on the probability and desirability of its projected consequences.
    • (The expected value of a state-of-affairs is the probability it occurs times its value.)

Examples

  • You shouldn’t shoplift because you might get caught.
    1. If you shoplift, you might get caught.
    2. Getting caught is undesirable.
    3. So you shouldn’t shoplift.
  • The possession, use, and sale of guns should be strictly regulated because they’re inherently dangerous.
    1. If the possession, use, and sale of guns are strictly regulated, gun deaths and injuries will decrease.
      • Since guns are inherently dangerous,
    2. Fewer gun deaths and injuries is desirable.
    3. Therefore, the possession, use, and sale of guns should be strictly regulated
  • Motorcyclists should be required to wear helmets because they save lives.
    1. A cyclist is less likely to get killed in an accident wearing a helmet.
    2. Getting killed is a bad thing.
    3. Therefore helmets should be mandatory.
  • Capital punishment should be abolished because of the risk of executing an innocent person.
    1. Capital punishment risks executing an innocent person.
    2. Executing an innocent person is a terrible wrong and a grave injustice.
    3. Therefore capital punishment should be abolished.

Analogical Normative Arguments

  • An analogical normative argument is an argument that an action should be done because it’s just like an action that clearly should be done.
  • For example:
    1. There’s no relevant difference between cheating and surreptitiously changing your grade on the instructor’s spreadsheet.
    2. You shouldn’t change your grade on the instructor’s spreadsheet.
    3. Therefore, you shouldn’t cheat.

Decision-Making

  • Deciding what to do, or what should be done, involves weighing the normative arguments for and against the options.
  • For example, arguments for and against capital punishment versus life imprisonment with no parole include:
    • Deontic arguments that invoke principles such as:
      • The punishment should fit the crime
      • Killing is wrong
      • Inhumane punishments are wrong
    • Expected-value arguments such as:
      • Risk of executing an innocent person
      • Deterring capital crimes
      • Preventing criminals from committing future crimes.
  • Weighing the arguments involves determining both fact and value. For instance, weighing the principle that the punishment should fit the crime against the risk of executing an innocent person involves determining:
    • the extent that the severity of execution fits the gravity of the crime,
    • the extent that the severity of life imprisonment fits the gravity of the crime,
    • the risk of executing an innocent person
    • the undesirability of executing an innocent person.

View Decision-Making
View Capital Punishment
View Decision-Making Tools

Addendum

  1. Normative arguments are defeasible
  2. Conflict between deontic and expected-value arguments: a deathbed promise
  3. Deontological and Consequentialist Ethics
  4. Four Senses of ‘Reason’
  5. Senses of ‘Reasoning’
  6. Decision-Making Tools
  7. Using a Neighbor’s Internet Connection

Normative arguments are defeasible

  • An argument is defeasible if the premises’ support of its conclusion can be defeated by additional premises.
  • Consider the argument:
    • Promises should be kept.
    • Abe promised his brother he would take him to the zoo.
    • Therefore Abe should take his brother to the zoo.
  • The premises’ support of the conclusion is defeated by the additional premise:
    • Abe has to take his brother to the ER because he was hit by a car.
  • View Defeasible Arguments.

Conflict between deontic and expected-value arguments: a deathbed promise

  • Suppose on her deathbed Mason and Ella’s mother requests her will be changed, leaving her estate to a wealthy televangelist rather than to her children and grandchildren.  They make the change, she signs the updated will, and they promise to abide by the new will.
  • Their mother dies later in the day.
  • Mason and Ella debate whether to abide by the will or destroy it.
  • Deontic Argument
    • Promises should be kept, other things being equal.
    • Mason and Ella promised their mother they would abide by the updated will.
    • Therefore, they should abide by the will.
  • Expected-value Argument
    • The estate passing to the children and grandchildren is much better than it going to a wealthy televangelist.
    • Therefore, Mason and Ella should destroy the new will.

Deontological and Consequentialist Ethics

  • The distinction between deontic and expected-value arguments is reflected in the two kinds of theories of normative ethics: consequentialism and deontological ethics.
  • britannica.com/topic/consequentialism
    • In ethics, the doctrine that actions should be judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences.
  • britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
    • In philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions.
    • In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.

Four Senses of ‘Reason’

  • Normative Sense
    • “Reason for or against” in the normative sense is a reason for or against an action, i.e. a basis or argument for or against the action.
    • Dictionary definitions
    • Examples
      • Give me one good reason why I should believe you.
      • That an action is illegal is a reason against doing it.
      • What are the reasons for and against capital punishment?
      • That an action is in one’s interest is a reason for doing it.
      • The risk of getting caught is a reason against stealing. That it’s morally wrong is a better reason.
      • There are two good reasons for quitting your job.
      • Enjoying an activity is a reason for pursuing it.
  • Motivating Sense
    • “Reason for or against” in the motivating sense is a person’s reason for or against an action
    • Dictionary definitions
    • Examples
      • Her reason for quitting was low pay.
      • She explained her reasons for deciding to change jobs.
      • I can’t give you the report for the simple reason that it isn’t yet finished.
        • i.e. My reason for not giving you the report is that it isn’t finished.
      • She resigned for personal reasons.
        • i.e. Her reasons for resigning were personal.
  • Explanatory Sense
    • “Reason” in the explanatory sense is a reason for an event or a state-of-affairs, a reason why something happened, a reason that something is the case.
    • Dictionary definitions
    • Examples
      • The reason he died was Covid pneumonia.
        • i.e. the explanation why he died was that he had Covid pneumonia.
      • I gave a reason for my absence.
        • i.e. I gave an explanation for my absence.
      • The reason John Oliver is ineligible to be president is that he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
        • i.e. the explanation for John Oliver‘s ineligibility is that he’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
      • Is there a reason for your strange behavior?
        • i.e. Is there an explanation for your strange behavior.
      • There is a reason why they don’t want to come.
        • i.e. There is an explanation why they don’t want to come.
    • Sentences using reason in the explanatory sense are interchangeable with sentences using why, because, therefore, explain
  • Capacity Sense
    • “Reason” in the capacity sense is reason as a capacity for reasoning
    • Dictionary definitions
    • Examples
      • All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. (David Hume)

Senses of ‘Reasoning’

Decision-Making Tools

  • Decisions based on expected-value arguments get complex. Tools have been developed to lay out the options and possible consequences.
  • A Decision Tree is a tree showing options with their possible consequences.
  • View Decision Trees
  • Decision Theory combines the probability and value of a state-of-affairs into one quantity: expected value.
    • The expected value of a state-of-affairs is the product of its probability and value.
    • The expected value of an action is the sum of the expected values of the possible outcomes.
  • For example, the expected value of betting $100 on red in roulette in Las Vegas is:
    • [expected value of winning] + [expected value of losing]
    • [value of winning x probability of winning] + [value of losing x probability of losing]
    • [$100 x  (18/38)] +  [– $100 * (20/38)] = -$5.26
  • View Decision Theory
  • A Forecasting Model is a computer program that generates predictions by simulating aspects of the real world.
  • Forecasting models are useful for consequence decision-making in two ways:
    • Forecasting Conditions, e.g. forecasting the weather on D-Day.
    • What-if Analysis, e.g. forecasting the effects of proposed legislation or competing military strategies.
  • View Forecasting Model

Using a Neighbor’s Internet Connection

  • What’s wrong with this analogical argument?
    • A friend tells you he pays nothing for his high-speed Internet connection. He had noticed that his neighbor’s WiFi connection was unsecured and simply connected his devices to it. You tell him that’s wrong. He replies: No, it’s just like at Starbucks reading the paper the guy next to you is reading.
  • Your friend’s argument:
    • It’s morally okay to furtively read a newspaper over a stranger’s shoulder (as long as you don’t disturb them).
    • Piggybacking off a neighbor’s Internet connection is morally analogous to furtively reading over a stranger’s shoulder.
    • Therefore, it’s morally okay to piggyback off a neighbor’s Internet connection
  • But …
    • There’s a morally relevant difference between the analogs: unlike light waves Internet bandwidth is a limited resource.
    • The use of Internet bandwidth by one person may adversely affect its use by someone else.  But a person reading over another’s shoulder doesn’t absorb photons the other person could have used.