of identity and we have our own set of Chinese traditional customs and practice. We also want to maintain and comply with such cultural traditions. Indigenous inhabitants are more conservative and making will is not a popular practice. If a land owner has a strong desire to leave his land to his daughters, he will make a will. If he does not propose to make a will, that means he agrees with this custom. many traditions in China. Do the indigenous inhabitants comply with them all? The indigenous inhabitants claim that they will protect the community and defend the lineages, but many of them had already emigrated to other countries, and abandoned their agricultural land. Many of the village houses in the New Territories had been sold to people from another clan or urban people. The so-called cultural tradition has disintegrated. The indigenous inhabitants are just protecting their own privileges and private interest. Mr. C, one of the gentry in the New Territories: Law cannot break away from local traditional customs and practice. If there is any injustice, the indigenous inhabitants may compromise and settle on their own. If the government presses for a change in this traditional custom and we are required by “an outsider” to “do this and that”, it will only cause resentment. An outsider does not understand the spirit behind a tradition and the living habits of indigenous inhabitants. This is a situation whereby “an outsider supervises an insider”. Questions for discussion: 1. Summing up the opinions of the above people, what are the most important reasons for people supporting or opposing the bill? 2. “The New Territories Ordinance” has been enacted for nearly 100 Why do you think that amendments were only proposed at the end of the 20th Century? 3. Why do you think the society was divided into two camps, with most of the indigenous inhabitants opposing the bill and non-indigenous inhabitants supporting the bill? 4. In what circumstances will cultural traditional values clash easily with modern value? Why? 5. How we deal with conflicts between “traditional cultural values” and “moral values”? Students may give answers containing the following key points reasonable answers are also acceptable): There are moral values behind the arguments of both the supporting and opposing group. For example, those who support the bill upheld the value of “equality between man and woman”. Those who oppose the bill upheld the value of “traditional customs” (the indigenous land inheritance tradition), “for the clan” etc. The former values are modern ones, and the latter cultural and traditional.
I support pre-marital sex, because minor 2. I support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because major minor I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, because major Knowledge Content of the Subject (4): Reasoning fallacies Many heated debates are full of reasoning fallacies. Although they appear to be reasonable and persuasive, they are in fact false. These arguments are fallacious either because premises are unsupported or because their premises are irrelevant to their conclusions. Below are some common types of reasoning fallacies: 1. Appeal to the majority It argues that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. Example 1: John: “Everyone believes that ‘Everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost’, thus, it is not wrong to be selfish!” of all, from our experience, it is not true that “everyone believes” the statement. Moreover, even, for the sake of argument, we agree that a many people believe the statement, it is only a description of facts. We cannot infer from it a normative claim “it is not wrong to be selfish”. Thirdly, the true meaning of “Everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost” is that everyone has to be strong and fight for themselves. 2. Appeal to authority It argues that a proposition is true because some authority says so. Example 2: Peter: “As the super star Andy Lau says drug use is harmful, it is wrong to do so.” Although super stars may exert great influence over their fans, their ideas are only personal views, from which we cannot derive a normative conclusion. It may be effective to employ the
“Ordinary people think they have to keep their promise, but in my free world, keeping promise is nothing but fetters.” Valid Fallacious commits (suggested answer) Questions “My Chinese teacher said that Brand S’s mobile phones are better than those of Brand A, so I think Brand S is better.” Valid Fallacious commits Appeal to authority “Actions that can increase the pleasure of affected are moral. Tim’s volunteer work has increased the pleasure of the people he served, so his action is moral.” Valid Fallacious commits “Many people that this official's speech is equivalent to insulting the public and I therefore agree that he is wrong!” Valid Fallacious commits the fallacy of appeal to the majority “This lecturer was expelled from school when he was a teenager. And he said that the education system is oppressive. How can he convince others? “ Valid Fallacious commits the fallacy of personal “Judy wants to be a responsible person, and she believes that if she makes a mistake, she will admit it. Now she thinks that in the bazaar that she has taken the initiative to organize, there were some decisions that has been wrongly made. She therefore decided to apologize to the other members for her mistake.” Valid Fallacious commits “It is wrong to hurt innocent people. Enforcing laws over-stringently may hurt innocent people. Therefore, it is immoral to enforce laws Valid Fallacious commits human, one must adhere to one’s position, because to uphold one’s position is the most important principle of being human.” Fallacious commits the fallacy of circular “Ordinary people think they have to keep their promise, but in my free world, keeping promise is nothing but fetters.” Valid Fallacious commits the fallacy of
Other references for writing this session: MacKinnon, Fiala, and Fiala, Andrew. “Ethics and Ethical Reasoning,” Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (8th ed.) Boston, MA : Cengage Learning, 2017. 1-19pp. Panza, Christopher, Adam, Potthast. “Approaching Ethics: What Is It and Why Should You Care?” Ethics for Dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2010. 9-18pp. Pojman, Louis P. “What Is Ethics?” Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 7th ed. Cengage Advantage Books. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012. 1-13pp.