Provability argument

-an argument or reasoning process used to establish the provability or unprovability of a particular
statement within a given formal system or logical framework.

-In this argument, from root word provability, you need to prove or justify a statement a particular
statement which can be about moral principles, theories, or ethical claims by providing a proof, disproof,
or sequence of propositions,

the last proposition is the conclusion

- u can also use axioms (are fundamental statements or principles that are assumed to be true within the
formal system of a community.)

NEXT SLIDE
In probability argument, there is a concept of soundness in which two conditions must be met

Truth of premises: the argument must be true statements within the chosen society and their culture.

Which means that your propositions or axioms that you will use must be accurate and accepted within
that system or culture.

Logical Validity: The conclusion of the provability argument must logically follow from the premises. This
means that the steps or rules of inference used in the argument must be valid within the formal system,
and the conclusion must be a direct consequence of the premises.

If a provability argument satisfies both of these conditions, it is considered sound. If not, it is unsound.

However, If an argument is unsound, it doesn’t mean the conclusion is false, just that the argument
doesn’t support it.

Example:

In the context of ethical relativism

Society A is polygamy, which they consider morally correct. Society B is monogamy, which they consider
morally correct. Therefore, polygamy and monogamy are morally correct.

In the context of ethical relativism, both are correct which makes conclusion correct. But second
sentence does not support that first premise, which makes it an unsound argument.

NEXT SLIDE
Different outcomes of provability argument

-statement is proven to be true

-statement is proven to be false

-statement is shown to be unprovable, which may imply that it is true but not provable

In an argument which involves ethical relativism, the third outcome will most likely occur

Ethical relativism- the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture.

-in ethical relativism, a practice or principles are morally correct within the society’s cultural context

Which means that there is no universal, objective moral truth in ethical relativism because the truth of
the matter is relative/dependent to the cultural and individual perspectives involved

Example:

Person A performs a particular ritual in their community to give thanks to their God

Person B, which is from the outside or not part of the community condemns the practice and argues that
it is ethically and morally wrong or unjustifiable and that it is harmful and violates basic human rights

In this scenario:

From the perspective of Person A: The ritual sacrifice is considered morally right and is deeply rooted in
their ethical framework. Therefore, they believe it to be true (morally acceptable) within their cultural
context.

From the perspective of Person B: The ritual sacrifice is considered morally wrong, and Person X believes
it to be true (morally wrong) based on their own ethical framework and beliefs.

In ethical relativism, you could argue that the statement "The ritual sacrifice is morally right" is true
within the cultural context of Person A but may not be true in the context of Person B's beliefs.

Likewise, the statement "The ritual sacrifice is morally wrong" is true from Person X's perspective but is
not accepted as true within the cultural context of Society A.

In this example, ethical relativism suggests that moral judgments are dependent on one's cultural
background and individual beliefs. What is considered morally acceptable or morally wrong depends on
the particular ethical framework that a person is part of. Kaya it is considered "true but not provable"
NEXT SLIDE
Pros

Clarity and Rigor: Provability arguments in ethics bring clarity and rigor to ethical discussions. They
demand precision in articulating ethical principles and reasoning, which helps avoid ambiguity and
ensures that ethical claims are well-defined and logically coherent. This clarity is essential for
constructive ethical debates.

Logical Structure: ethical provability arguments rely on a logical structure. This structured approach
allows for a systematic examination of ethical claims, ensuring that conclusions are derived from
consistent and well-structured premises. It helps ensure that ethical reasoning follows a valid and
transparent path.

Objectivity in Meta-Ethical Inquiries: provability arguments can provide an objective framework for
evaluating and comparing different ethical theories. They help philosophers and ethicists assess the
internal consistency of ethical systems and explore their implications without relying solely on subjective
opinions.

Useful for Meta-Ethical Inquiries: They can be used to analyze and evaluate the coherence and
implications of various meta-ethical positions, such as moral realism, moral anti-realism, or moral
relativism. This allows for a deeper understanding of the foundations of ethical thought.

Clash Resolution: Ethical provability arguments can serve as effective tools for resolving ethical conflicts
and dilemmas. By analyzing ethical claims and principles within a structured framework, they offer a
method for finding common ground or identifying areas of agreement and disagreement among
different ethical viewpoints. They help identify points of convergence and divergence, aiding in dispute
resolution.

CONS

Subjectivity of Premises: One significant limitation of provability arguments in ethics is that they often
rely on subjective premises. Ethical principles and values can vary greatly among individuals and
cultures, and what one person considers a valid premise may not be accepted by another. This
subjectivity of premises can lead to disagreements and difficulties in reaching consensus.
Incompleteness: Ethical provability arguments may not fully capture the complexity of ethical issues.
Ethics often deals with multifaceted and nuanced questions, and formal arguments may oversimplify
these complexities. This can result in an incomplete or superficial analysis of ethical problems.

Cultural and Contextual Variability: Ethics is highly influenced by cultural and contextual factors. What is
considered morally acceptable in one culture or context may be viewed differently in another. Provability
arguments may struggle to account for this variability and may not provide a universally applicable
framework for ethical analysis.

Moral Diversity: Ethical provability arguments may not adequately address the diversity of moral
perspectives and ethical frameworks that exist. There are various moral theories, such as utilitarianism,
deontology, virtue ethics, and cultural relativism, each with its own principles and values. A single
provability argument may not accommodate the richness of moral diversity.

Dependence on Assumptions: Like any argument, provability arguments in ethics depend on certain
assumptions, which may or may not be universally accepted. These assumptions can significantly impact
the conclusions of the argument. If the underlying assumptions are questionable or disputed, the validity
of the entire argument may be called into question.