The process of syllogistic decision-making is predicated on the conclusions that can be drawn from presenting two or more pieces of evidence. In its most rudimentary form the process of syllogistic decision-making follows the following pattern: a = b and b = c, therefore a = c. If the context of syllogistic decision-making, the conclusions that can be drawn are simplistic in nature as they allow a logical progression of the specific information that is presented. In the example provided above the conclusion drawn is that a equals c. This conclusion is drawn based on the information provided which shows that b is equal to both a and c. Although this method of provides a logical and rational means for decision making, there have been notable examples that demonstrate the problems that can arise when syllogistic decision-making models are used absolutely for making decisions.
[...] What is perhaps most interesting about the moral judgment that is provided in the context of the syllogistic decision-making process is that it does not always accurately produce a defensible conclusion. As such, even when a decision is made utilizing the rationale of the syllogistic framework and a defensible moral standard that carries with it concrete evidence of its truthfulness, the final moral judgment that is made in the syllogistic process may be faulty. What this effectively suggests is that the reasoning that is utilized in the syllogistic decision-making process is flawed. [...]
[...] Consider again the issue of abortion one could effectively argue that consequentialist approach to decision-making has been utilized in this case. The decision to abort a fetus can be justified if it occurs before the 24th week of gestation; before the fetus is considered to be a fully formed human being. The consequentialist argues the outcome for the mother is the opportunity to live her life without the burden of caring for a child. Given that the fetus has no rights as a human being before the 24th week, the fact that the fetus may want to live is not an issue that is taken into consideration before this time. [...]
[...] Examining first the arguments that have been made in support of abortion, it is evident that scientific discourse has served as the basis for establishing the woman's right to choose. Those that support abortion have noted that the human life of the fetus does not begin until it is able to live outside of the womb without the support of the mother—i.e. approximately 24 weeks gestation. Utilizing scientific research that has been collected on the survivability of the fetus outside the womb, scientists have established the benchmark of 24 weeks as the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb. [...]
[...] Clearly, what this suggests is that the outcome of the decision made is the central focus of decision-making in the moral framework of utilitarian thought. Applying this to the consequentialist/nonconsequentialist foundation, the very nature of the decision making process in utilitarian philosophy appears to fully support the consequentialist view of moral decision- making. For utilitarians the central goal of decision-making is to find a solution to a problem that will produce the most aggregate happiness. In other words, the outcome that is sought is happiness. [...]
[...] While this does not preclude decision-making that can be harmful to the individual, the goal of egoism is to achieve self- preservation over the long term. What this effectively suggests is that decision-making can have a negative connotation if it advances the long- term needs of the individual. Placing this moral theory into the consequentialist/nonconsequentialist framework, the decisions that are made in the egoism framework are clearly those that are predicated on the outcomes of the decision made. Under the egoist framework, decisions are made for the sole purpose of producing a specific outcome—i.e. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee