I found that the CTAA reading was very interesting because of all of the different forms of mapping moral arguments. I did not really know what consequentialism, universalism, deontic, or aretaic argument forms were, let alone the differences each had in evaluating if an action was morally good or bad. I found that the deontic moral arguments were most interesting especially in regards to lying because as an intrinsic feature lying is bad, so therefore H should not do A. I find the idea that an argument based off of intrinsic features is fascinating because it really is not dealing with the consequences of an action, it is if the action is good or bad in itself. I think that this reading really gave a great new way to look at moral arguments, especially because Warren did not really give us any way to evaluate moral arguments.
Critical Thinking
Now that you mention it, Warren never explicitly discuss moral arguments. I think this is also why I enjoyed this reading because I knew moral principles, claims and arguments existed, but I had no idea how deep they could go. It’s simple to say something is good and something is bad, but reading all of the different ways to analyze them made me realize how complex it can become. I do appreciate how the authors stated several times that multiple lines of reasoning are used to defend moral arguments (i.e. considering intrinsic features and the consequences).
I agree in deontic moral arguments were very interesting to read about. If we’re judging the intrinsic features of an argument, then we’re using a preconceived notion of what’s good and bad. I feel like there’s a lot of room for disagreement in deontology because people’s ideas of what’s good and bad are so different. Is there a set of rules to follow, and if not, how would you even go about making them?
Warren really never actually did discuss how to evaluate moral arguments now that I think about it, shaking my head. I’m not going to lie, the mapping of the moral arguments were quite puzzling to me but I enjoyed trying to figure it out because I didn’t know that they could be that complex. But overall, I agree that the reading was quite intriguing.
I believe that it is quite important to know the differences between consequentialist, deontologist and other types of philosophical thought in order to understand many things and to truly think critically. The differences between these types of thought are quite significant and can really help to analyze arguments if one understands what type of argument he or she is evaluating.
It is interesting that Warren does not mention deontic principles in any of her pieces. the advantage of using a Kantian style theory for ethics, as opposed to consequentialism, is that moral principles can be subbed in as premises when making arguments. With a principle in place, all further premises in the argument can be evaluated morally. One would think Warren would find this extremely useful.