Reference no: EM133482215

Assignment:

Of the various principles of Christian ethics (from Panicola (p. 56-59), and the introductory comments), which do you think are the most important ones to consider for BIOethics? In other words, given that we will be talking about life-and-death dilemmas, which Christian principles do you think will be most important for making good bioethical decisions? Support your ideas with evidence from the readings. You may also comment on this week's logical fallacy, though your post must mostly focus on the above question. Finally, consider how the application of principles fits within the frameworks discussed in Week one.

This weeks' logical fallacy to learn is the "Straw dog" argument, along with its close cousin "moving the goalposts." A logical fallacy is a logical error that renders a statement formally (that is, according to the rules of logic) flawed. A straw dog is a kind of fallacy that involves characterizing the other side's argument in a way that makes it easier to dismantle, then dismantling that argument rather than the real one. While it is always important to understand and summarize an opposing position, care must be taken to ensure you are summarizing the best possible argument. An oft-cited example goes like this:

Person A: "I'd rather have a dog than a cat."

Person B: "Why do you hate cats?"

Person B makes person A look bad by twisting their words, a simple preference, into an absolute without nuance. Person B can then provide convincing arguments about why one ought not to hate cats, but this is a very different argument than why one might prefer a cat to a dog.

These fallacies are common in politics, but let's work hard to make them be non-existent in our course! (You do not need to address the logical fallacy in your post, but you may if you wish).