=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3614/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Deontological Argumentation Schemes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3614/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-3614
|authors=Nancy L. Green
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cmna/Green23a
}}
==Deontological Argumentation Schemes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3614/paper5.pdf
Deontological Argumentation Schemes
Nancy L. Green1
1
University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA
Abstract
In this short paper we present work in progress on some argumentation schemes for analysis of
arguments that are based upon deontological ethics. Deontological approaches view the rightness
of an action based upon its accordance with duty, rights, or justice regardless of its consequences.
The goal of this work is to provide semantic templates for recognizing implicit or explicit premises
and conclusions of naturally occurring, “everyday” arguments in applied ethics, e.g., on topics such
as vegetarianism and social justice.
Keywords 1
Deontology, Applied Ethics, Argumentation Schemes
1. Introduction
In [7] we presented some argumentation schemes for descriptive modeling of utilitarian ethical
arguments. Here we present some argumentation schemes for analysis of arguments that are based upon an
alternative to utilitarianism, deontological ethics. The goal of this work is to provide semantic templates for
recognizing implicit or explicit premises and conclusions of naturally occurring, “everyday” arguments in
applied ethics, e.g., on topics such as vegetarianism and social justice. Also, the argumentation schemes are
provided with lists of critical questions [11] that can be used to recognize (or generate) challenges to the
arguments.
Deontological approaches view the rightness of an action based upon its accordance with duty or rights,
regardless of its consequences [1,4,8]. “Deontology is commonly used in moral philosophy to refer to
nonconsequentialist moral conceptions. The most distinctive feature of deontological moral conceptions is
that they define fundamental principles of right and justice in terms other than taking the most effective
means to promote maximum good” [4]. Deontology is a moral theory about which actions are morally
required, forbidden, or permitted [1].
2. Argumentation schemes
Various reasons given in support of vegetarian diets may be classified as environmental, health-related,
or ethical [2,3,5,10]. Environmental arguments, such as factory farming of animals for meat is harmful to
the environment, or health-related arguments, such as a vegetarian diet is better for your health, can be
modeled using practical reasoning or argument from consequences [11]. The conclusions of those
argumentation schemes are that an agent should (or should not) do a certain action, in order to bring about
the agent’s goal or to bring about or avoid certain consequences. The intended sense of ‘should’ is the
“prudential” sense [11]. Here we present some argumentation schemes for representing certain arguments
Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA23), December 1, 2023, Virtual
EMAIL: nlgreen@uncg.edu
©️ 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
about vegetarianism and other topics based on deontological ethics. The conclusions of these schemes
specify an ethical constraint, i.e., that an action is ethically required (obligatory), ethically prohibited
(forbidden), or ethically permitted (permissible). The premises of the schemes involve concepts of duty,
rights and justice.
The Argument from Duty has three versions, reflecting whether the conclusion is that an action is
forbidden, obligatory, or permissible. For example, some would argue that an agent has a moral duty to not
harm animals and eating meat is tantamount to doing harm to animals; therefore, it is forbidden for the
agent to eat meat. Alternatively, some would say that an agent has a moral duty to prevent animal suffering
and following a vegetarian diet is tantamount to preventing animal suffering; therefore, it is obligatory for
the agent to follow a vegetarian diet. The permissible version of Argument from Duty is required for the
case where an action is neither obligatory nor forbidden, e.g., if eating fruit is neither obligatory nor
forbidden then eating fruit is permissible.
Argument from Duty-forbidden (obligatory)
Premises:
1. Agent has duty D to not do (to do) Action.
2. Doing X is tantamount to doing Action in the current situation S.
Conclusion: It is forbidden (obligatory) for Agent to do X in S.
Argument from Duty-permissible
Premises:
1. Doing X in current situation S is neither obligatory nor forbidden.
Conclusion: It is permissible for Agent to do X in S.
One may challenge these arguments with critical questions CQ1 and CQ2. To illustrate CQ1, someone in
favor of vegetarianism may argue that eating meat is permissible in certain situations, e.g., to avoid
starvation. The problem of conflicting duties or rights is a well-known issue in deontological ethics
[1,4,8,12]. To illustrate CQ2, one may argue that it is permissible to eat meat because one has a right to
choose what to eat, overriding the duty to not harm animals.
CQ1. Is the current situation an exceptional circumstance?
CQ2. Is there a higher precedence duty or right?
Whereas duties constrain actions, rights license them. “Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain
actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be
in certain states” [12]. The following Right to Do scheme describes when it is permissible to do something,
based upon a right. For example, an agent’s right to choose what to eat may license the agent’s action of
eating meat. In addition to having rights to do things, an agent may have a right to be (or not to be) in a
certain state, as reflected in the following Argument from Right to Be. For example, if an agent has a right
to not be hungry and eating meat prevents their hunger then it is permissible for them to eat meat.
Argument from Right to Do-permissible
Premises:
1. Agent has right R to do Action.
2. Doing X is tantamount to doing Action in the current situation S.
Conclusion: It is permissible for Agent to do X in S.
Argument from Right to Be-permissible
Premises:
1. Agent has right R to (not) be in state Z.
2. Doing X brings about (prevents) state Z in the current situation S.
Conclusion: It is permissible for Agent to do X in S.
One may challenge the above arguments with CQ1 and CQ2. For example, one might challenge an
argument that it is permissible to eat meat with the criticism that someone’s right to choose what to eat
would infringe on a higher precedence right, an animal’s right to live without being used as human food.
(The rights of others also are involved in schemes related to distributive justice, below.)
The following schemes distinguish the concepts of negative rights (e.g., the right to not be enslaved) and
positive rights (e.g., the right to access to healthcare). “The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-
interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service” [12]. The
roles specified in the following schemes are that of (1) Grantor, one who has the obligation to refrain from
interfering or to provide a certain benefit, and (2) Grantee, one who will experience the interference or
benefit, respectively.
Argument from Negative Right-forbidden
Premises:
1. Grantee has negative right R to be free of burden B.
2. Grantor has obligation to ensure Grantee is free of B.
3. Grantor doing X would bring about Grantee’s experience of B in the current situation S.
Conclusion: It is forbidden for Grantor to do X in S
Argument from Positive Right-obligatory
Premises:
1. Grantee has positive right R to receive benefit B.
2. Grantor has obligation to ensure Grantee receives B.
3. Grantor doing X would bring about Grantee’s receipt of B in the current situation S.
Conclusion: It is obligatory for Grantor to do X in S.
For example, one might argue that it is forbidden for a government to pass or enforce slave-owning laws
because people have a negative right to not be enslaved and the government has an obligation to ensure that
people are not enslaved. Similarly, one might argue that it is obligatory for a government to pass and enforce
anti-pollution laws because people have a positive right to live and work in a healthy environment. Again,
CQ1 and CQ2 may be used to challenge these arguments.
Lastly, the following schemes are derived from two distinct notions of justice: “justice as a principle for
assigning distributable goods of various kinds to individual people, and justice as a remedial principle” [9].
Distributive justice “assumes a distributing agent, and a number of persons who have claims on what is
being distributed … according to some relevant criterion, such as equality …” [9]. For example, some in
the U.K. have argued that it is unjust for bankers to receive disproportionally higher salaries than most other
people in the U.K. [6].
Argument from Distributive Justice-forbidden (obligatory)
Premises:
1. Others have right R to be treated the same as Grantee with respect to B.
2. Grantee receiving (not receiving) B in the current situation S is not consistent with R.
Conclusion: It is forbidden (obligatory) for Grantee to receive B in S.
Corrective and compensatory justice involves the fair allocation of rewards and retribution (e.g.,
punishment or victim compensation). For example, some in the U.K. have argued that bankers’ extremely
high pay is justified as a reward for their hard work [6]. Also, it is a commonly voiced sentiment today that
political figures should receive the same punishments for crimes as ordinary citizens (“no one is above the
law”). CQ1 and CQ2 also may be used to challenge the Justice arguments.
Argument from Corrective/Compensatory Justice-obligatory (forbidden)
Premises:
1. Grantee has right to reward/retribution B if earned.
2. Grantee has earned (has not earned) B in the current situation S.
3. Grantor has obligation to ensure Grantee will receive (will not receive) B when (if not) merited.
4. Grantor doing X will bring about B in S.
Conclusion: It is obligatory (forbidden) for Grantor to do X in S.
3. Example
Figure 1 illustrates the application of the Argument from Duty forbidden/obligatory schemes to analysis
of an excerpt from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.2 In this excerpt,
King gives a moral argument that one should obey just laws (e.g. pro desegregation of schools), and a
parallel argument that one should not obey unjust laws (e.g. pro segregation).
Forbidden for agent Obligatory for agent
to obey segregation Arg from Duty to obey desegregation
ordinances (21) forbidden decision (19) Arg from Duty
obligatory
Moral responsibility Segregation laws are Moral responsibility Desegregation is just
to disobey unjust unjust (17) to obey just laws (6) (implied)
laws (7)
Arg from Classification
Arg from Classification
Segregation is Any law that de-
degrading (18) grades is unjust (16) Desegregation is Any law that uplifts is
uplifting just (15)
(implied)
Figure 1. Two arguments in Letters from a Birmingham Jail
Excerpt from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:
1 Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation
in the public schools,
2 at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us to consciously break laws.
3 One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”
4 The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.
5 I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.
6 One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.
7 Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
8 I would agree with St. Augustine that
9 “an unjust law is no law at all.”
2
Full letter is available at https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html (accessed
11/14/2023) and numerous other sources.
10 Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?
11 A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.
12 An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
13 To put in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas:
14 An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
15 Any law that uplifts human personality is just.
16 Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
17 All segregation statutes are unjust
18 because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
[skipped several lines here]
19 Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court,
20 for it is morally right;
21 and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances,
22 for they are morally wrong.
4. Conclusion
In [7] we presented some argumentation schemes for descriptive modeling of utilitarian ethical
arguments as an alternative to use of more general argumentation schemes such as practical reasoning and
argument from consequences. We showed that our approach makes it possible to specify the intended,
ethical, sense of ‘should’ in the schemes’ conclusions, and to tailor the premises and critical questions for
utilitarianism. In this paper we have extended that approach to the descriptive modelling of “everyday”
arguments based upon deontological ethics.3 Recognition of the argumentation scheme from which an
argument was derived supports inference of missing premises, or even inference of the conclusion if it was
not explicitly given in a text. Also, recognition of the ethical basis of an argument, deontological or
utilitarian, provides a deeper understanding of it.
5. Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous CMNA23 reviewers for many helpful suggestions of areas to address in our
future work on this topic.
6. References
[1] L. Alexander and M. Moore, "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
. Accessed 11/14/2023.
[2] D. Carrrington. Why you should go animal-free; 18 arguments for eating meat debunked. The
Guardian. June 19, 2020. Downloaded from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/19/
why-you-should-go-animal-free-arguments-in-favour-of-meat-eating-plant-based-debunked. Accessed
11/14/2023.
[3] P. Clarke. Meat eaters or vegetarians. Who has the better arguments? Farmers Weekly. 03 January
2019. Downloaded from https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/health-welfare/meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-who-
has-the-better-arguments. Accessed 11/14/2023.
3
In future work we plan to compare deontological schemes to certain schemes in [11] and to justify use of
deontological schemes in place of them for analysis of ethical argumentation.
[4] “Deontology”, Encyclopedia of Ethics (2nd Edition), Edited By Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B.
Becker. 2001.
[5] T. Doggett, "Moral Vegetarianism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Accessed 11/14/2023.
[6] I. Fairclough and N. Fairclough. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge; 2012.
[7] N.L. Green. 2023. An Analysis of some Ethical Argumentation about Genetically Modified Food.
Argument and Computation. In Press.
[8] D. McNaughton and P. Rawling, “Deontology”, The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. D. Copp
(ed), pp. 424-458. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.003.0016. Accessed
11/14/2023.
[9] D. Miller, "Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = . Accessed 11/14/2023.
[10] ProCon.org. Should people become vegetarian? https://vegetarian.procon.org/. Accessed 11/14/2023.
[11] D. Walton, C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
[12] L. Wenar, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
& Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = . Accessed
11/14/2023.