The reading was very interesting as it addresses the topic of moral arguments. Moral arguments are “arguments whose conclusions assert that something is morally good or morally bad.” These types of arguments don’t actually have the words “good” or “bad” in them but instead they are revealed by other words. The nature of moral arguments includes a lot of emotion and often times these feelings can distract from choosing a belief or side to be on. Due to the complexity and importance of moral arguments, we can also map them. Mapping these arguments relates to the other readings from Warren that we have done in class. Moral arguments contain premises and are typically about actions. While there are other complications that differ from the basics of Warren, there are also similarities in the ways that the arguments are evaluated.
This evaluation of if something is morally wrong can be associated with the article we read “Doing, Good Better” by William Macaskill. This article deals with doing good and doing it in the most efficient way possible. As individuals, we are constantly looking at what is right and wrong and how we can help others. Moral arguments and the evaluation of them is vital to our society. Arguments are intended to find the truth within beliefs. By combining this with morals, we are looking within societal beliefs and evaluating what is “permitted.”
I like that you made the connection between “Doing good better” and this reading. I think this relates a lot to what Michael was saying about this text not addressing Utilitarianism,
I think its great that you connected this reading to the “doing good better”, as both discuss the most effective way of doing things, although todays article about ethics speaks to the idea from a emotional/moral standpoint and the “doing good better” discusses it from a scientific standpoint to make sure we are doing the most amount of good possible. I think although in “doing good better” it states that to be the most effective in altruism you need facts, todays article also shows how although emotions can “distract from a belief or side to be on”, these emotions are a factor of life that we cant escape, and thus are an important factor in our beliefs.
I like how you mentioned the influence of emotions in moral arguments. To properly evaluate moral arguments we are not supposed to allow emotions to influence our thinking, however this is a bit unrealistic. Emotions greatly influence our actions which can be seen in the PlayPumps example from Doing Good Better. If the creator of PlayPumps relied solely on the facts of how much good he was influencing, he would have implemented a different change into those communities to help since the playPumps were actually making their lives harder.