Ethical Claims Both ethics and morals involve considerations about what’s right and wrong. The term “ethics” derives from the Greek word ethos, meaning character, while “moral” comes from the Latin word moralis, meaning ethical. So the words “ethics” and “morals” are often used interchangeably. For most of this text, we’ve been exploring the ways that people provide support that a claim is true. But now we’re exploring something quite different: how people provide support that a claim is right—not “right” in the sense of being accurate but “right” in the sense of being the morally correct thing to do. Not everything has a moral dimension. Some things, like arithmetic, are amoral. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neither good nor bad, it’s just true. In contrast, consider the following claim: It is wrong to eat meat. This is still a conclusion, and to persuade others to believe it we will need to construct an argument (i.e., provide sound reasoning to support this conclusion). So we’re still dealing with claims and arguments, fallacies and sources, and so on, but we’ve completely left the realm of science, with its observable phenomena and replicable experiments. We’re in the land of ethics now. We learn ethics like we learn everything else: through a mixture of personal experience and shared knowledge. Every society possesses a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. Generally speaking, we believe that it is good to help other people and bad to hurt them. We learn this from our own reactions to things as we grow up and develop our sense of self. And these lessons are reinforced by parents, teachers, friends, and strangers, as well as in the stories of our culture. A Few Helpful Terms for Discussing Ethics Ethics: thinking and reasoning about right and wrong. Moral principles: rules of conduct that guide an individual’s actions to take into account the interests of other people. Excuse: a reason offered for breaking a moral principle in a given situation. Justification: an argument claiming that violating some moral principle is actually the right course of action in a given situation. Killing is wrong… (moral principle) … unless you are killing someone as punishment for killing someone else. (justification) Moral dilemma: a situation in which there is not an obvious ethically right or wrong answer, often because there are two moral principles in conflict with each other. An armed man has entered a school and is killing children. It’s wrong to kill. Should I kill him to keep him from killing others? Answer the following questions about the material above. Multiple Choice Question How do moral claims differ from other types of claims? · There’s no such thing as a fallacy in a moral claim. · They make a claim about what’s right and wrong. · They must be supported by evidence. · They contain a premise and a conclusion. Multiple Choice Question Kayla normally believes that a mother should make her child as happy as possibl ...

1. Ethical Claims
Both ethics and morals involve considerations about what’s
right and wrong. The term “ethics” derives from the Greek word
ethos, meaning character, while “moral” comes from the Latin
word moralis, meaning ethical. So the words “ethics” and
“morals” are often used interchangeably.
For most of this text, we’ve been exploring the ways that people
provide support that a claim is true. But now we’re exploring
something quite different: how people provide support that a
claim is right—not “right” in the sense of being accurate but
“right” in the sense of being the morally correct thing to do.
Not everything has a moral dimension. Some things, like
arithmetic, are amoral. The equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neither good
nor bad, it’s just true. In contrast, consider the following claim:
It is wrong to eat meat.
This is still a conclusion, and to persuade others to believe it we
will need to construct an argument (i.e., provide sound
reasoning to support this conclusion). So we’re still dealing
with claims and arguments, fallacies and sources, and so on, but
we’ve completely left the realm of science, with its observable
phenomena and replicable experiments. We’re in the land of
ethics now.
We learn ethics like we learn everything else: through a mixture
of personal experience and shared knowledge. Every society
possesses a sense that some things are right and others are
wrong. Generally speaking, we believe that it is good to help
other people and bad to hurt them. We learn this from our own
reactions to things as we grow up and develop our sense of self.
And these lessons are reinforced by parents, teachers, friends,
and strangers, as well as in the stories of our culture.
A Few Helpful Terms for Discussing Ethics
Ethics: thinking and reasoning about right and wrong.
Moral principles: rules of conduct that guide an individual’s
actions to take into account the interests of other people.

2. Excuse: a reason offered for breaking a moral principle in a
given situation.
Justification: an argument claiming that violating some moral
principle is actually the right course of action in a given
situation.
Killing is wrong… (moral principle)
… unless you are killing someone as punishment for killing
someone else. (justification)
Moral dilemma: a situation in which there is not an obvious
ethically right or wrong answer, often because there are two
moral principles in conflict with each other.
An armed man has entered a school and is killing children.
It’s wrong to kill.
Should I kill him to keep him from killing others?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
How do moral claims differ from other types of claims?
· There’s no such thing as a fallacy in a moral claim.
· They make a claim about what’s right and wrong.
· They must be supported by evidence.
· They contain a premise and a conclusion.
Multiple Choice Question
Kayla normally believes that a mother should make her child as
happy as possible. However, Kayla took away her daughter’s
favorite toy for a day and explained to her husband that it was
because the girl had thrown a tantrum in the grocery store and
needed to be taught a lesson. Which of the following is Kayla
providing?
· a moral dilemma
· a moral principle
· a justification
· an amoral claim
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Describe an example of a moral dilemma that you have
encountered in your own life. Practice: Ethical Claims

3. Is It Ethical to Refuse to Hire Smokers?
The following pair of articles, which appeared in the New
England Journal of Medicine in April 2013, explore the
controversies surrounding the question of whether or not it is
ethically appropriate for institutions to adopt policies of not
hiring smokers.
Read the two articles below, and then answer the following
questions.
Conflicts and Compromises in Not Hiring Smokers
The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following provides the BEST generalization about
the two articles?
· Both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” recognize the moral dilemma at
stake, but “Conflicts” ultimately takes a stance in favor of the
practice, while “Ethics” argues against it.
· Both “Conflicts” and “Ethics” recognize the moral dilemma at
stake, but “Conflicts” ultimately takes a stance against the
practice, while “Ethics” argues in favor of it.
· After analyzing the moral dilemma at stake, both “Conflicts”
and “Ethics” conclude that it is unethical to adopt a practice of
not hiring smokers.
· After analyzing the moral dilemma at stake, both “Conflicts”
and “Ethics” conclude that it is ethical to adopt a practice of not
hiring smokers.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following statements from the articles has a moral
dimension?
· Finding employment is becoming increasingly difficult for
smokers.
· It is fair to exclude smokers because they are responsible for
raising health care costs.
· Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 440,000 deaths
in the United States each year.
· About 70 percent of smokers say they want to quit, but only 2

4. to 3 percent succeed each year.
Short Answer Question
Using the information in these two articles, explain how an
institution’s decision whether or not to adopt policies against
hiring smokers is a moral dilemma.
In “Conflicts,” click the link to view the figure titled “Proposed
Ladder of Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use.” In your
opinion, what is the highest ladder rung where the practice
described is still ethical? Explain.
Which of the following arguments does the “Conflicts" article
use to justify moving up the intervention ladder?
· The prescribed actions on the lower rungs haven’t done
enough to deter people from smoking.
· Smokers appreciate it when institutions adopt the practices
higher up the ladder.
· Smokers choose to smoke, so they deserve the penalizing
actions prescribed on the higher rungs.
· Companies would save a lot of money in health insurance if
they fenced out smokers.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
According to “Ethics,” health care organizations posed the
argument that “their employees must serve as role models for
patients and that only nonsmokers can do so." Explain whether
you agree or disagree with that statement, and why.
After reading both articles, indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with the following statement: It is unethical to
refuse to hire smokers.
Top of Form
· Strongly agree
· Agree
· Neither agree nor disagree
· Disagree
· Strongly disagree
Ethical Reasoning
Can we reason about something as seemingly subjective as right

5. and wrong? Well, we’re in real trouble if we can’t. We do it
every day. And ethical reasoning forms a part of the most
important decisions we make as individuals, organizations, and
a society. Consider the following questions:
Should I forgive my brother?
Should we pay our employees based on the value they generate?
Should our country go to war?
Just like arguments for anything else, arguments for right and
wrong make claims and employ reasoning in which premises are
offered to support a conclusion.
Premise: Jason plagiarized his term paper.
Premise: Plagiarism is wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jason was wrong to plagiarize his term
paper.
Going beyond true or false to draw a conclusion about right and
wrong is what makes this particular argument an ethical one.
Such arguments often follow this basic pattern:
1. Premise that makes an amoral statement about a specific
situation (simple fact)
2. Premise that makes a moral statement about a moral principle
(right or wrong)
3. Conclusion that demonstrates a moral statement regarding the
specific situation
Premise: Panhandlers often spend the money that passers-by
give them on alcohol and drugs. (amoral claim stated as a
simple fact)
Premise: It’s wrong to give people money that is going to be
spent on alcohol and drugs. (moral statement about a moral
principle)
Conclusion: Therefore, you should stop giving money to
panhandlers. (conclusion that demonstrates how the moral
statement applies to the specific situation)
The ethical arguments we encounter daily typically have an
unstated ethical statement (an enthymeme). For instance, you’d
be more likely to hear the above argument stated as something
like:

6. Panhandlers usually just spend the money that passers-by give
them on alcohol and drugs, so you should stop giving them your
cash.
Formal analysis is easier when you articulate the implied claim
that “You shouldn’t give people money that is going to be spent
on alcohol and drugs.” Likewise, you might hear the earlier
example abbreviated as “Jason plagiarized his term paper, so he
was in the wrong,” hiding the implied claim that “plagiarism is
wrong.”
Articulating the implied moral claim uncovers the deductive
syllogism, making it easier to analyze, and calls attention to the
assumed moral statement to enable scrutiny. Just like with any
valid deductive argument, you would want to analyze the truth
of both premises before you accept the conclusion about what
you “should” be doing.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Consider the following ethical argument:
1. Driving while intoxicated puts the lives of others at risk.
2. It is wrong to put the lives of others at risk.
3. Therefore, driving while intoxicated is wrong.
Which of the following explains why the second premise is a
“moral statement about a moral principle”?
· It’s an objective statement that can be backed up by statistics.
· It makes a claim about risk.
· It applies a moral principle to a specific situation.
· It’s a general statement about how something is right or
wrong.
Multiple Choice Question
Marquell says, “Stem cell research is wrong, because it often
involves the destruction of human embryos.” What is the
implied moral statement in Marquell’s enthymeme?
· It is wrong to research cures for diseases.
· It is wrong to destroy human embryos.
· Stem cell research is not likely to cure any diseases.
· Marquell has personal experience with stem cell research.

7. Short Answer Question
Why is it often beneficial to articulate the assumed moral
statement in a moral argument, such as in the example
above?Practice: Ethical Reasoning
A Dietary Dilemma
There are many reasons that people choose a vegetarian diet,
and sometimes those reasons are ethical ones. But are there also
ethical arguments for why you shouldn’t be a vegetarian? In
2012, the New York Times ran a contest to see who could come
up with the most persuasive argument in favor of eating meat.
In response to this contest, a blogger offers his own moral
argument for why eating meat is unethical.
Read the two articles below, and then answer the following
questions.
A Simple Argument for Vegetarianism
Give Thanks to Meat
Multiple Choice Question
What assumption did the New York Times “Ethicist" contest
call into question?
· It is possible to avoid meat and still enjoy a healthy diet.
· It is natural and right to eat meat.
· Meat-eaters don’t care about animal suffering.
· Eating meat causes suffering to animals.
Multiple Choice Question
In the ethical argument that the author of “A Simple Argument”
presents, which of the following statements functions as the
amoral statement of the argument?
· Meat-eating causes avoidable suffering.
· Therefore, meat-eating is wrong.
· It’s wrong, other things being equal, to be the cause of
avoidable suffering.
· Trivial human interests don’t justify overriding or
disregarding vital animal interests.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form

8. The author thinks more people will argue with the second
statement. Why do you think this is (or is not) the case?
No response saved yet.
Bottom of Form
·
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Short Answer Question
What is the central argument of “Give Thanks to Meat”?
No response saved yet.
Multiple Choice Question
The author of “A Simple Argument” suggests that the pleasure
derived from eating meat is the only human interest at stake in
the activity, but the author of “Give Thanks” argues that eating
meat also has which of the following benefits?
· preventing animal overpopulation
· living in the most ecologically benign way
· feeding your family a nutritious diet
· providing financial support to farmers who raise livestock
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
List two explicit premises that you find the most compelling in
“Give Thanks to Meat.”
Moral Theories
All moral claims are grounded in some moral theory. It is the
nature of such claims that they are based on a system of beliefs
about what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
The table below lists a handful of the moral theories you are
most likely to encounter in ethical arguments today. It’s
important to note that each one has its own strengths and
weaknesses.
Moral theories give you general guidelines, but you still usually
have to apply moral reasoning in individual cases to test them
out. For example, none of these theories explicitly claim that
killing is wrong. The theories are more about how you would

9. ground your claim that killing is wrong.
Moral theories are also not mutually exclusive. The argument
that killing is wrong could be grounded in all of these theories.
Whether they know it or not, everyone has a moral theory. It is
inescapable. Even if their moral theory is that there are no
morals, that still represents a moral theory. But not all moral
theories are equal—some hold up to critical thinking better than
others.
You may see wisdom in all of these perspectives, or you may
strongly identify with a single one. Regardless, it's important
for you to recognize the potential weaknesses in any moral
theory you favor, and it's helpful for you to understand why
others find legitimacy in the moral theories they employ.
Theory
Criticisms
Kantian Ethics
· Immanuel Kant put forth the categorical imperative, which
states that you should only act on moral principles that you
would be willing to turn into universal laws mandating that
everyone act the same way.
· This is a version of the question, “How would you like it if
everyone did that?”
Any two people who want to get married should be able to.
· This theory is so absolute that it sometimes goes against moral
common sense.
It’s wrong to kiss my spouse because I would not like it if
everyone kissed my spouse.
Utilitarianism
· The morally right course of action is the one that will produce
the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of
people.
· The only thing that matters is the consequences of the action,
not the intentions behind the action (the ends justify the means).
· Ignores people’s rights, duties, and intentions.
· Could be used to justify an act that most would consider
morally wrong because it inflicts harm on one person unjustly,

10. even if it brings great happiness to many others.
It’s okay to steal money from my neighbor and take my family
on a vacation, because then my whole family would be happy,
and only my neighbor would be harmed.
Ethical Egoism
· Doing whatever is best for your own interests or would make
you happy.
· This is not necessarily the same thing as doing whatever you
want in the moment, because that might not be in your best
interests in the long term.
· Can be used to justify terrible actions.
Ethical Altruism
· Doing whatever is best for others or would bring the greatest
amount of happiness to people besides yourself.
· Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what is best for everyone
involved.
Authoritarian Moral Theory
· Doing whatever an authority figure (a teacher, your boss, the
president, etc.) tells you is the right thing to do.
· You’re sacrificing your critical thinking skills when you
blindly follow what someone else says without scrutinizing it.
Religious Absolutism
· Doing whatever your religion, deity, or sacred text says is
right.
· Like the authoritarian moral theory, it can be dangerous to
blindly follow any authority.
· There is enduring controversy over which religion is the
“correct” one.
· Historically, religion has been used to justify many actions
generally considered immoral.
Moral Relativism
· Believing that morality is completely subjective and each
person decides for themselves what they think is right.
· Implies that you can’t pass judgment on anybody for anything,
assuming they’re doing what they believe is right.
· Becomes contradictory—what if you believe an action is

11. wrong and another person believes the same action is right?
According to moral relativism, the action would then seem to be
both right and wrong.
Cultural Relativism
· Believing that whatever your culture approves of is the right
thing for you to do.
· Has the same problems as moral relativism.
· How do you determine what counts as a culture or group? And
what if there is disagreement within that group?
Religious Relativism
· Believing that whatever your religion approves of is the right
thing for you to do.
· Has the same problems as the other relativism theories.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Hayley reads online about tribes in Papua New Guinea that
inflict cuts on young boys because they believe the experience
will turn them into disciplined men. She tells her friend Celia
that this practice is wrong because her parents taught her that
corporal punishment for children is always wrong. What moral
theory is she using?
· utilitarian moral theory
· authoritarian moral theory
· ethical egoism
· religious absolutism
Multiple Choice Question
Celia claims that you can’t pass judgment on the practices of
tribes in Papua New Guinea because they have their own
cultural norms and the right to decide for themselves what’s
right and wrong. What moral theory is she using?
· cultural relativism
· religious absolutism
· ethical altruism
· utilitarian moral theory
· Response Board Question
Top of Form

12. Give an example of a moral dilemma in which a moral theory
based on utilitarianism would suggest one course of action,
while a moral theory based on religious absolutism would
suggest a different one. Practice: Moral Theories
A Disinterested Party?
The purpose of marketing is to persuade people to get excited
about a product. If people are getting excited, then does it
matter whether or not they know they’re being marketed to? The
following piece from 60 Minutes explores a moral dilemma
about the fine line between marketing and deception.
Watch the video below, and then answer the following
questions.
YouTube video. https://youtu.be/p7LTEFCH54g. Uploaded
March 15, 2009, by litez16. To activate captions, first click the
play button and then click the CC button in the embedded
player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.
What is stealth marketing?
· marketers simulating personal recommendations in real-life
situations
· online advertising through social networking sites
· product placement in movies and TV shows
· apparel that displays corporate logos
Short Answer Question
What makes stealth marketing different from traditional
marketing?
No response saved yet.
Short Answer Question
Why might some people think that stealth marketing is
unethical?
No response saved yet.
Multiple Choice Question
Suppose you conducted a survey of all the people you had
approached through a stealth marketing campaign and found

13. that the majority of them were happy to be introduced to a new
product, and only a small minority were angry at being
deceived. Under which moral theory could you use that as
evidence that stealth marketing is a morally correct course of
action?
· authoritarian moral theory
· utilitarianism
· Kantian ethics
· ethical egoism
Multiple Choice Question
If a person agreed with Malcolm Gladwell and argued that
stealth marketing is unethical because it is always wrong to
deceive people, which moral theory would the person be using
to justify this moral statement?
· ethical altruism
· authoritarian moral theory
· utilitarianism
· Kantian ethics
Multiple Choice Question
If a person agreed with Malcolm Gladwell and argued that
stealth marketing is unethical because it dilutes the power of
real word-of-mouth communication, thus doing more harm than
good in the long run, which moral theory would the person be
using to justify this moral statement?
· ethical egoism
· Kantian ethics
· religious absolutism
· utilitarianism
Multiple Choice Question
Suppose you had a product you were promoting with stealth
marketing, and you justified your tactics by saying, “Stealth
marketing is the right thing to do because it will help me make
the most money on my product.” Which moral theory would you
be employing?
· Kantian ethics
· ethical egoism

14. · ethical altruism
· authoritarian moral theory
Poll Question
Which of the following best describes your opinion on stealth
marketing?
Top of Form
· I love this idea! It’s a creative and innovative way to promote
new products.
· Nothing wrong with it. No one’s forcing you to buy the
product; they’re just exposing you to it.
· I wouldn’t mind being deceived into making a purchase by a
stealth marketer as long as I was happy with the product.
· I would be very annoyed if I found out that I purchased a
product promoted by a stealth marketer.
· I hate this idea. It’s unethical to engage in a fabricated
personal interaction just to promote a product.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form