Ironically, just doing the right thing is often easier than organizing one's thoughts and arguments concerning an ethical issue. This article examines a legalistic model for ethical argumentation proposed in this journal by T. M. Sawyer and finds it to have serious problems and limitations. Also illustrated is how argument from analogy is better suited to the task of discovering and presenting well-defended ethical positions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SawyerT. M.The Argument about Ethics, Fairness, or Right and Wrong, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 17:4, pp. 367–375, 1988.
2.
GovierT., The Right to Eat and the Duty to Work, in Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy, MappesT. and ZembatyJ. (eds.), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 363–374, 1988.
3.
ThomsonJ. J.A Defense of Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1:1, pp. 47–66, 1971.
