HS 2601 L2 - Critical and Ethical Thinking P1
Isnât it all âjustâ opinion
- Opinion - personal claim that doesnât necessarily require support + certain qualities
- Argument - claim that needs to be worth making, valid, sound, logical + must be
provided w/ reasonable, relevant + sufficient support
Argument structure
- Warrant b/c i made the claim i must provide proof
- Claim - students cheating w/ AI and its bad
- Needs proof - 1. Theyre doing it, 2. Detection software would do anything, 3.
Detection would be the best approach, + identify weaknesses â conclusion
- Well constructed = argument still stands
- Never situations where ethics argument slammed on 100% - always some shortcoming
- All things considered xyz right thing to do
- Always having rly significant shortcoming or objection
- MAID + dying - extension of autonmy + should b able to choose it
- Proof - right to make decision yourself as a patient in reg treatments, how
many ppl suffer needlessly w/ dibilitating illness
- Objection - misuse, disproportionate amount of ppl w/ disabilities using it,
gov not supporting disabled ppl = they usu choose it
- Have to work through all of it to come to best solution
Basic distinctions in ethical thinking
- Health sciences deal w/ matters of fact + matters of value
- Fact and value statements - not same but used interchangeable
- Fact (description)
- What is or isnât factually the case
- What was or will be factually the case
- Know w/ high degree of certainty its true - may be descriptive - describing
situation (not saying good/bad just what is)
- Value (normativity)
- What should or shouldnât be done
- What ought or ought not be done
- Come as not something that can be proved or disproved
- I think this is important or cherish this
- Going against this = exchange of opinions
- Value ab what we should do ab it - unfortunate we need to do something to prevent it
more (chlymidia)
- Any fact statement usu has value attached but they are diff
