The Divine Command Theory

A. Statement- or claim is an assertion that something is or is not the case it is either true or B. Argument- an credit line is a group of statements, ace of which is supposed to be supported by the rest. In an contestation the supporting statements are cognize as premises the statement being supported is known as a conclusion. C. Indicator Words- are confiness that often appear in arguments and signal that a premise or conclusion may be nearby. Arguments Good and Bad1. Deductive arguments- are supposed to give logically conclusive support to their conclusions. 2. Inductive arguments- are supposed to offer only presumable support for their conclusions. 3. Valid arguments- a deductive argument that does in fact provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. 4. Invalid argument- a deductive argument that does not offer logically conclusive support for the conclusion. 5. Strong argument- an inductive argument that manages to actually give probable support to the conclusi on. 6. Weak argument- an inductive argument that does not give probable support to the conclusion. 7. Sound argument- valid argument with true premises.8. Cogent argument- strong argent with true premises.Moral Statements and Arguments A. Moral Statement- is a statement affirming that an operation is right or wrong or that a person is good or bad. B. Nonmoral Statements- is a statement that does not affirm that an action is right or wrong or that a person is good or bad. Avoiding Bad Arguments1. Begging the question- is the fallacy of arguing in a company that is trying to use a statement as both a premise in an argument and the conclusion of that argument. 2. Equivocation- assigns two different meanings to the same term in an argument. 3. Appeal to reservoirity- the fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone thought to be an expert who is not. 4. Slippery slope- the fallacy of using dubious premises to conclude that doing a particular action will inevitably lead to other acti ons that will result in disaster, so you should not do that first action. 5. unseasonable analogy- is arguing by an analogy that is weak. 6. Appeals to ignorance- fallacy consists of arguing that the absence of evidence entitles us to believe a claim. 7. Straw man- misrepresenting someones claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted. 8. Appeal to the person- is arguing that a claim should be rejected solely because of the characteristics of the person who makes it. 9. hurried generalization- the fallacy of drawing a conclusion approximately an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group. SummaryThis chapter was about the different types of evaluating moral arguments. The section that I thought was most interesting was the section when the author started to talk about moral statements and arguments. I agreed with what the author had to say when he said a moral statement affirming that an action is right or wrong or that a person is good or ba d. Like when a person lies they know that they have done something wrong without someone telling them. That is basically what this whole chapter about.