To PEE some argument is to Present, Explain,
and then Evaluate that argument. It's often the case that people
have a hard time learning the PEEing procedure. So in this handout I will PEE
the Argument from Moral Responsibility, while highlighting the PEEing procedure
along the way.
I. Presenting the Argument
To present an argument is simply to write the argument down
in a valid form. For example:
The Argument From Moral Responsibility
1. Sometimes we are morally responsible for our actions.
2. If (1), then sometimes we act freely.
3. If sometimes we act freely, then HD is false.
4. Thus, HD is false. [1,2,3 MMP]
II. Explaining the Argument
To explain an argument is to do two things: it is (i) to define
all the technical terms in the argument, and (ii) to provide a rationale for
each premise. A rationale for a premise is an example, reason, or sub-argument
that illustrates why a defender of the argument might believe
the premise to be true. Rationales SUPPORT premises; they are NOT objections
to premises. You must go line by line when providing rationales for
the premises. Here's my explanation of the Argument from Moral Responsibility:
First, the technical terminology:
Hard Determinism (HD): Every event has a cause, so nobody ever acts freely.
e1 causes e2 =df. (i) e1 and e2 are distinct events, (ii) e1 is temporally prior to e2, and (iii) e1 makes e2 occur.
Interpretations of the phrases 'morally responsible' and 'act freely' are provided in the rationales below.
Now, the rationales:
(1) Hitler was morally blameworthy for many of his despicable actions. He was
blameworthy for the torture and execution of millions of Jews, Catholics, Poles,
and Czechs. And if anyone is either praiseworthy or blameworthy for any action,
then that person is morally responsible for that action (MR1). This being the
case, line (1) seems fairly plausible.
(2) In light of the fact that we have been using the word 'freely' here to mean
loosely 'could have done otherwise', line (2) is probably true in virtue of
the very plausible MR2:
MR2: If S is morally responsible for A, then S could have done something other
than A.
Or, in other words: if we're not free, then we can't be morally responsible.
(3) The second part of HD states that nobody ever acts freely. So, if someone
does in fact act freely, then that portion of the theory is false. If any portion
of a theory is false, then the theory as a whole is false.
III. Evaluating the Argument
To evaluate an argument is to answer a series of questions concerning that argument:
Is it valid? If so, then which form is it in? Is the argument sound? If you
don't believe it is, then pick a line and state an objection. Here's a popular
yet controversial evaluation of the Argument from Moral Responsibility:
Valid? Yes
Form? MMP
Sound? Yes