The Language of Argument

3 8 6

C H A P T E R 1 9 ■ M o r a l R e a s o n i n g

Some people—for example, strong pacifists—accept premise (1), but most

people who adopt strong anti-abortion positions do not. This comes out in

the following way. Many of those who oppose abortion are in favor of the

death penalty for certain crimes. Therefore, they do not accept the general

principle that it is always wrong to take a human life. What they need,

then, is a principle that allows taking a human life in some instances but

not in others. In an effort to achieve this, those who oppose abortion could

reformulate the first premise in these words:

(1*) It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Here the word “innocent” allows an exception for the death penalty being

imposed on those who are found guilty of certain crimes. Of course, if

we simply stick this premise into the previous argument, the result is

invalid:

(1*) It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.

(2) Abortion involves killing a human fetus.

(3) A human fetus is a human being.

(4) Abortion is always morally wrong.

To make it valid, we need to add a new premise, so that the whole argument

looks like this:

(1*) It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.

(2) Abortion involves killing a human fetus.

(3) A human fetus is a human being.

(4*) A human fetus is innocent.

∴(5) Abortion is always morally wrong.

Even stated this way, however, the first premise seems to admit of coun-

terexamples. If someone’s life is threatened by a madman, it is generally

thought that the person has the right to use whatever means are necessary

against the madman to prevent being killed. This may include killing the

madman, even though the insane are usually thought to be morally innocent

of their deeds. If so, the moral principle must be modified again, and then

we get something like this:

(1**) It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being except

in self-defense.

It is still possible to find difficulties with this principle that will lead some

to add further modifications or clarifications. Children, for example, are

often the innocent victims of bombing raids, yet the raids are often thought

to be justified, because these deaths are not intended, even though they

are foreseeable. At this point it is common to modify the principle again

by including a reference to intentions. We shall not, however, pursue this

complex line of reasoning here.^1

97364_ch19_ptg01_383-422.indd 386 11/15/13 5:45 PM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.