5.6: Legal Reasoning and Moral Reasoning

By employing a healthy skepticism and dosage of reasonable doubt, we can be sure that what we believe has been hard-earned through careful and cautious analysis. In this discussion of moral reasoning, we will learn how to decide what to do. In this sense, moral reasoning is the most practical part of the process. When we reason about morality we build arguments, just like when we reason about anything else. But arguments involving moral propositions have to be constructed in a special way. This is partly to help us avoid the Naturalistic Fallacy. But it is also to help ensure that our arguments about morality are consistent.

Features of Moral Arguments

The main thing that makes an argument about morality distinct from other kinds of arguments is that moral arguments are made of moral statements, at least in part. A moral statement, as you might guess, is a statement about morality: it is a statement that says something about what’s right or wrong, good or evil, just or unjust, virtuous and wicked. Moral statements are not like other propositions: they do not talk about what is the case or not the case. Rather, moral statements talk about what should be the case, or what should not be the case. Look for moral indicator words like ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘must’, ‘is right’, ‘is wrong’, and the like. And look for the language of character-qualities, like ‘temperance’, ‘prudence’, ‘friendship’, ‘coldness’, ‘generosity’, ‘miserliness’, and so on. Sometimes, sentences written in the imperative voice (i.e. sentences which are commands) are moral statements in which some of the moral indicator words have been left out.

Thus, a sentence like “Share your toys!” could mean, “You should share your toys!” But to be fully logical, it’s necessary to phrase imperative sentences that way in order to fit them into moral arguments, and find out whether they are sound. It’s also easy to fall into the fallacy of equivocation. Words like ‘good’ can have a moral and a non-moral meaning: we don’t use the word ‘goodness’ the same way when we speak of good snow boots, and good people. With that in mind, which of the following are moral statements, and which are not?

• Peter should keep his promise to you.
• Peter did keep his promise to you.
• Human stem cell research is wrong.
• Some people think that human stem cell research is wrong.
• My mother is a good person.
• My mother tries to be a good person.
• This pasta dinner is really good.
• Finish your dinner!
• It’s wrong to cheat on tests.
• Information gathered from terror suspects via torture can’t be trusted.
• Torturing people suspected of terrorism is barbaric and criminal.
• You’ve always been a good friend to me.
• Proper etiquette demands that we treat guests with respect.

As mentioned, moral arguments are made of moral statements. This means that the conclusion is a moral statement, and at least one of the premises is also a moral statement. As we saw in the discussion of deductions, nothing can appear in the conclusion that was not present somehow in at least one of the premises. So, if you have a moral statement for a conclusion, you need a moral statement somewhere in the argument as well. Without one, the argument is an instance of the Naturalistic Fallacy, and it’s unsound. Consider these examples:

(P1) It’s wrong to steal candy from babies.

(P2) Little Sonny-Poo-Poo is a baby.

(C) Therefore, it’s wrong to steal candy from Little Sonny-Poo-Poo.

In this example, P1 is a general claim about moral principles, and P2 is a factual statement. Together, they lead us to the conclusion, which passes a moral judgment about the particular case described in P2. So while it ultimately can be seen as valid, the truth of (P1) requires much further defense.

(P1) Jolts of electricity are very painful.

(P2) Some of the prisoners have been interrogated using electric jolts.

(C) It is wrong to torture people using electric jolts.

In this example, both P1 and P2 are both factual claims. But the conclusion is a moral statement. Since there’s no moral statement among the premises, this argument is unsound. Now there might be an implied, unstated general moral principle which says that it’s wrong to inflict pain on people. And some readers might unconsciously fill in that premise, and declare the argument sound that way. But remember, when examining an argument, the only things you can examine are what’s actually in front of you.

Legal Reasoning⁵⁰

Legal reasoning, for our purposes, is actually quite simple. To employ legal reasoning means that within the confines of the legal system, you use the logical methods we have employed to arrive at a conclusion of how to apply the law. So, if you want to figure out whether or not something is legal, you look to the relevant laws, combine them using logic, and you have answer.

However, nothing is always this simple. There are fallacies often committed with legal reasoning of two kinds:

1. Whatever is right is legal, and whatever is wrong is illegal.
2. Whatever is legal is right, and whatever is illegal is wrong.

You’ll notice that these are all moral claims, and we are not entitled to make these claims. Indeed, we can find examples that disprove each of these (it’s right to steal medicine to save a life but it’s not legal, it’s wrong to cheat on your spouse but it’s not illegal). However, in general, we do like the laws to match up with our moral reasonings. Whenever making any arguments, it’s always important to understand the relevant laws and how they impact (for better or worse) the claims and conclusions you are making.