Contact FutureLearn for Support
Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Summary of Week 7

In the last three weeks we’ve been considering domains that call upon our critical thinking skills in distinctive ways. In the previous two weeks we talked about science and law. This week we turned to morality.

Our aim in the course has been to give you the skills to ensure that you adopt true beliefs and reject false ones. Some of the most important decisions we make are about which beliefs to adopt, reject, or revise, concern moral beliefs: beliefs about whether something - a situation, and action, a person - is morally good or bad, right or wrong, or has some other moral quality such as being just, admirable, or blameworthy.

We began by distinguishing between descriptive, normative, and moral statements, and by describing the form of at least valid moral arguments, introducing you to the great philosopher of Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume. A valid argument which has a moral conclusion must have a moral premise.

We discussed relativism - the view that moral beliefs are true or false only relative to cultures, or times, or individuals (the “that may be true for you, but it’s not for me” claim) - offering some non-deductive reasons to think it was unlikely to be true.

We talked about moral theories and the way in which they both resembled and differed from scientific theories: moral theories are not ‘mere’ theories – untested, tentative, vague generalisations. They are are based on repeated observations, integrate hypotheses, and attempt to explain a range of data. But where the data that scientific theories try to explain is provided by observation of the natural world, the data that moral theories try to explain is our considered moral judgements; judgements that have, we might say, survived the test of good logical and critical thinking.

And we gave an account of good ethical reasoning which rested not to anything like an exclusive access to the moral truth but instead on more accessible standards of reason and argumentation, standards of the sort one might learn in a course on logic and critical thinking.

And finally, we saw that moral reasoning is vulnerable to the same obstacles and biases which threaten good logical and critical thinking more generally. Our moral thinking is subject to framing and confirmation bias, and even to influences such as smell! We suggested that science might provide some external checks on these obstacles, and Glen Pettigrove thought that taking advantage of a range of perspectives might provide a similar check in moral contexts.

Share this article:

This article is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Course highlights Get a taste of this course before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study
    video

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God
    video

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises
    video

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials
    video

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    article

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law
    video

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner
    article

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan
    video

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.