Study Notes — Organized by Source Summary & Study Notes

1. Timmons, Mark (2002) - An Introduction to Moral Theory (Ch.1).pdf 🧭

• This source (Chapter 1) introduces what moral theory aims to do and sketches the main kinds of questions moral theory asks.
• It orients the reader to the distinctions needed to make sense of moral claims and how moral reasoning works.

Foundations — start from the smallest pieces

• People make claims about what is right/wrong, good/bad, or what we ought to do; these are called moral claims.
  • Example: "Stealing is wrong" is a moral claim — it expresses a judgment about action.
• Before using technical words, understand: moral claims are attempts to guide action and evaluate behavior.

Basic distinctions (explained, then named)

• There are different kinds of questions about morality:

  1. Some questions describe how people do behave or what they believe (this is descriptive inquiry).
     • Example: "Many people believe lying is wrong." — factual/descriptive.
  2. Other questions evaluate or prescribe what people should do (this is normative inquiry).
     • Example: "You should not lie." — prescriptive/normative.
  3. There are also questions about the meaning and epistemology of moral claims — how moral claims can be known or what they mean.
     • These are more abstract, asking whether moral claims express facts, emotions, commands, or something else.

• After the explanation above, we give the technical terms:

  • normative ethics: the study of principles that tell us what actions are right or wrong.
  • metaethics: the study of the nature, meaning, and justification of moral claims.
  • applied ethics: the use of moral theory to address concrete moral problems (like abortion, business ethics).

How moral theory works — building up the idea

• Moral theorizing tries to give reasons for thinking some moral claims are true.
  • Think of a moral theory as a system that explains why some actions are right and others wrong.
• A good moral theory aims for: clarity, coherence with our considered judgments, and practical guidance.

Common families of moral theory — explained from first principles

• Start with the basic idea each family relies on, then name it and give a short example.
  1. Consequences matter: judge actions by their outcomes.
     • Explanation: if what an action produces (happiness, harm) is what matters, we measure actions by their results.
     • Name: consequentialism (example: utilitarianism says maximize overall wellbeing).
  2. Duty and rules matter: some actions are right or wrong regardless of outcomes.
     • Explanation: certain acts are prohibited or required because of moral rules or obligations.
     • Name: deontology (example: it is wrong to lie even if lying produces better consequences).
  3. Character and virtue matter: focus on what kind of person one is becoming.
     • Explanation: moral evaluation centers on character traits (virtues) rather than isolated acts.
     • Name: virtue ethics (example: being honest is a trait to cultivate).

How theories connect to moral judgment

• Theories provide reasons that justify moral judgments.
  • Example process: notice a moral problem → appeal to a principle from a moral theory → reach a judgment about what to do.
• Theories can conflict; resolving conflicts requires comparing the reasons each theory gives and testing them against considered judgments.

Simple example to reduce confusion

• Scenario: You find a wallet with money and ID.
  • Consequentialist approach: Ask which action produces the best overall outcome (returning it likely reduces harm, preserves trust).
  • Deontological approach: Ask whether there is a duty (e.g., duty not to steal) that obliges returning the wallet.
  • Virtue ethics approach: Ask what a virtuous person would do (e.g., honesty, kindness).

How to use this chapter to study

• Focus on understanding the three major families (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics) by: 1) explaining them in plain language; 2) giving one real-world example; 3) noting typical strengths and weaknesses.
• Keep the basic distinctions (descriptive vs normative vs metaethical) in front of you when reading later chapters.

(Note: this PDF was scanned with minimal extractable text; the above reconstructs the core introductory ideas that Chapter 1 of an introduction to moral theory typically covers, explained from first principles.)

2. Vaughn, Lewis (2006) - How to Read an Argument (Writing Philosophy)2.pdf 📚

• This source teaches how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments in philosophy and everyday writing.
• It explains what arguments are, how to find premises and conclusions, classic argument forms, and how to judge strength and validity.

What an argument is — smallest pieces first

• Not everything that looks like a sentence is an argument.
  • Questions, commands, and exclamations are not arguments (they cannot be true or false).
• An argument is a set of statements where some statements (the premises) are intended to provide reasons for another statement (the conclusion).
  • Example of a plain argument: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

Premises and conclusion — explained then named

• Premise: a statement offered as a reason.
• Conclusion: the statement the premises support.
• How to spot them:
  1. Search for indicator words (but do not rely solely on them).
     • Common conclusion indicators: consequently, thus, therefore, hence, so, it follows that.
     • Common premise indicators: because, since, given that, in view of the fact that, for.
  2. If unsure, ask: which statement is being supported by others? That is the conclusion.

Unstated (implicit) premises — why they matter

• Some arguments leave out premises that the writer assumes you accept.
  • Helpful step: make implicit premises explicit to test the argument fully.
  • Example: "Judge Simpson supports capital punishment for juveniles; therefore he is an enemy of the Bill of Rights." (Missing premise: anyone who supports capital punishment for juveniles is an enemy of the Bill of Rights.)

Two broad types of arguments — explained, then named

• Deductive arguments: meant to give logically conclusive support; if premises are true, conclusion must be true.
  • If the form guarantees truth-preservation from premises to conclusion, the argument is valid.
  • If valid and premises are actually true, the argument is sound.
  • Example pattern (modus ponens): If p then q. p. Therefore q. — always valid.
• Inductive arguments: meant to provide probable support; if premises are true, conclusion is likely but not guaranteed.
  • If the premises make the conclusion likely, the argument is strong.
  • If strong and premises are true, the argument is cogent.
  • Example: Observing many A's with property P → conclude probably all/most A's have P (enumerative induction).

Classic deductive forms (learn to recognize them)

• Modus ponens (affirming the antecedent):
  1. If p, then q.
  2. p.
  3. Therefore q. (Valid)
• Modus tollens (denying the consequent):
  1. If p, then q.
  2. Not q.
  3. Therefore not p. (Valid)
• Hypothetical syllogism:
  1. If p, then q.
  2. If q, then r.
  3. Therefore if p, then r. (Valid)

Common invalid forms to avoid

• Denying the antecedent (invalid): Not p. Therefore not q.
• Affirming the consequent (invalid): q. Therefore p.
• Tip: match the argument to a known form to test validity quickly.

Inductive argument types — explained then named

• Enumerative induction: generalizing from a sample to a population.
  • Strength depends on sample size and representativeness.
  • Example: 60% of sampled Bostonians are pro-choice → maybe 60% of all Bostonians are pro-choice (sample may be biased).
• Analogical induction: if X and Y share several properties, they probably share another.
  • Strength depends on relevance and number of similarities.
  • Example: watch → universe analogy (design argument) — strength depends on how similar the universe really is to a watch.
• Inference to the best explanation (abduction): conclude the hypothesis that best explains the evidence.
  • Use criteria like conservatism (fits with well-established beliefs) and simplicity (fewer assumptions).
  • Example: best explanation for blood on clothes + weapon + eyewitness is that the defendant committed the crime (then evaluate alternatives).

How to evaluate an argument — step-by-step

1. Identify the conclusion first, then the premises.
2. Make any implicit premises explicit.
3. Determine the argument type: deductive or inductive.
4. For deductive: ask if the conclusion follows from premises (validity).
   • If valid, ask whether premises are true (soundness).
5. For inductive: ask if premises give probable support (strength).
   • If strong, ask whether premises are true (cogency).
6. Check for fallacies: irrelevant premises, bad sample, false analogy, begging the question, etc.

Short practice problems (from the chapter material) with solutions

Problem 1: Identify premises and conclusion

• Passage: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." Solution:

1. Premises: "All men are mortal." and "Socrates is a man."
2. Conclusion: "Socrates is mortal."
3. Form: Deductive; pattern = categorical syllogism; the argument is valid. If premises are true, it's sound.

Problem 2: Classify form and validity

• Passage: "If the cat is on the mat, then she is asleep. She is not asleep. Therefore, she is not on the mat." Solution:

1. Form: Modus tollens (If p then q; not q; therefore not p).
2. Valid: yes. If premises are true, conclusion must be true.

Problem 3: Evaluate an inductive generalization

• Passage: "Every formatted disk I have bought from the computer store is defective. Therefore, all formatted disks sold at the store are probably defective." Solution:

1. Type: Enumerative induction.
2. Strength depends on the sample size and how the disks were selected.
3. If the sample is large and representative, argument is strong; if small or biased, weak.

Key vocabulary to memorize (sparingly highlighted)

• argument, premise, conclusion, valid, sound

Quick study tips from this source (practical and procedural)

• Always look for the conclusion first; it orients the whole passage.
• Write implicit premises explicitly before evaluating.
• Learn the classic valid/invalid forms by practicing quick pattern-matching.
• For inductive claims, always question sample size and representativeness.

(Notes based on the extractable text of Vaughn's chapter "How to Read an Argument" — examples and rules are closely followed from the provided material.)

3. Harman, Elizabeth (2015) - Is it Reasonable to Rely on Intuitions in Ethics (Norton Introduction).pdf 🤔

• This paper examines whether we should treat immediate moral judgments (intuitions) as good evidence in ethical theorizing.
• It weighs reasons to trust intuitions against evidence that intuitions are unreliable or variable.

Start from the smallest pieces — what is an intuition?

• An intuition (here) = an immediate moral judgment or reaction to a case, often arriving without explicit argument.
  • Example: When you hear a trolley problem, you may immediately feel that pushing one person to save five is wrong — that immediate reaction is an intuition.
• Intuitions are not arguments by themselves; they are responses that might prompt further reasoning.

The role people ask intuitions to play

• People often use intuitions as data points in moral theorizing: theories should accommodate our considered intuitions.
• Two possible roles for intuitions:
  1. Starting points for reflection — clues to what a moral theory must explain.
  2. Evidence with some epistemic weight — reasons that can support or undermine moral theories.

Reasons to doubt intuitions — explained then named

• Empirical variability: intuitions across people, cultures, or experimental settings often differ.
  • Example: Different cohorts (cultures, age groups) may respond differently to the same moral vignette.
• Sensitivity to irrelevant factors: intuitions can shift depending on how a scenario is worded (framing effects) or on irrelevant psychological cues.
  • Example: Changing a few details in a thought experiment can flip many people's intuitive responses.
• These observations suggest intuitions might be unreliable as evidence for general moral truths.
  • Name for this concern: worries about the reliability of moral intuitions.

Defenses of using intuitions — explained then named

• Some argue intuitions reflect deep moral competence accumulated via moral experience and socialization.
  • If intuitions track moral truth because of psychological mechanisms tuned to moral facts, they may be reliable.
• Reflective equilibrium: we adjust principles and intuitions to reach coherence; intuitions are one input, not final authority.
  • reflective equilibrium = the method of seeking mutual support between principles and considered judgments.

How to decide whether to rely on intuitions — practical steps

• Do not treat raw, first-response intuitions as final; instead:
  1. Seek the considered intuition: test whether the intuition survives critical reflection and counterexample-testing.
  2. Test for reliability empirically: check whether the intuition is stable across reasonable rephrasings and not driven by irrelevant factors.
  3. Use arguments and reasons: look for independent support for the moral judgment from principles, consequences, or moral theory.
  4. Place intuitions in a network: incorporate them into reflective equilibrium where both principles and judgments can change.

Example to make the issue concrete (trolley-style)

• Case A (standard): A trolley will kill five people unless you flip a switch to divert it to a track with one person; most say flipping the switch is permissible.
• Case B (push case): You can push one large person onto the track to stop the trolley and save five; many say pushing is wrong.
• Observations to analyze:
  • Are the different intuitive responses explained by morally relevant differences (violation of personal rights vs impersonal action)?
  • Or are they driven by emotional responses to physical contact (an irrelevant factor)?
• If driven by irrelevant factors, this weakens the epistemic weight of the intuition; if driven by morally relevant factors, the intuition may be informative.

How Harman-style concerns affect ethical method

• Be cautious treating intuitions as unquestionable evidence.
• Use intuitions as prompts to formulate principles and then evaluate those principles via argument and further testing.
• Where intuitions conflict or vary massively, require stronger argument-based or empirical support before forming firm moral conclusions.

Key vocabulary to memorize (sparingly highlighted)

• moral intuition, reliability, reflective equilibrium

Short recommended procedure for students

1. When you get an intuition, write it down and note the exact wording of the case.
2. Ask whether small, irrelevant changes would flip your intuition.
3. Try to give reasons for the intuition; if you cannot, treat it as weak evidence.
4. Compare intuition against alternative evidence (other intuitions, principles, consequences).

(Note: the PDF had limited extractable text in this session. The above organizes the central debate Harman addresses—whether we should reasonably rely on moral intuitions—into a stepwise study-friendly form, from first principles through practical application.)