Chapter Summary

A moral argument is an argument in which the conclusion is a moral statement. A moral statement is a statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that a person or motive is good or bad. In a moral argument, we cannot establish the conclusion without a moral premise. A standard moral argument has at least one premise that asserts a general moral principle, at least one premise that is a nonmoral claim, and a conclusion that is a moral statement. Often a moral premise in a moral argument is implicit. In evaluating any moral argument, it's best to specify any implicit premises. The best approach to identifying the implicit premises is to treat moral arguments as deductive. Your job then is to supply plausible premises that will make the argument valid. You can test a premise that is a general moral principle by trying to think of counterexamples to it.

Theories of morality are attempts to explain what makes an action right or what makes a person good. We test moral theories the same way we test any other theory—by applying criteria of adequacy to a theory and its competitors. The criteria of adequacy for moral theories are (1) consistency with considered moral judgments, (2) consistency with our experience of the moral life, and (3) workability in real-life situations.

Making a coherent worldview is the work of a lifetime. Worldviews are composites of theories, including theories of morality. A good worldview must consist of good theories. But it also must have internal consistency—the theories composing our worldview must not conflict.