why should critical thinking and ethics be used together

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

What you need to know—and read—about one of the essential skills needed today..

Posted April 8, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

In research for "A More Beautiful Question," I did a deep dive into the current crisis in critical thinking.
Many people may think of themselves as critical thinkers, but they actually are not.
Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically.

Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion about who and what to believe.

These are some of the hallmarks of the current crisis in critical thinking—which just might be the issue of our times. Because if people aren’t willing or able to think critically as they choose potential leaders, they’re apt to choose bad ones. And if they can’t judge whether the information they’re receiving is sound, they may follow faulty advice while ignoring recommendations that are science-based and solid (and perhaps life-saving).

Moreover, as a society, if we can’t think critically about the many serious challenges we face, it becomes more difficult to agree on what those challenges are—much less solve them.

On a personal level, critical thinking can enable you to make better everyday decisions. It can help you make sense of an increasingly complex and confusing world.

In the new expanded edition of my book A More Beautiful Question ( AMBQ ), I took a deep dive into critical thinking. Here are a few key things I learned.

First off, before you can get better at critical thinking, you should understand what it is. It’s not just about being a skeptic. When thinking critically, we are thoughtfully reasoning, evaluating, and making decisions based on evidence and logic. And—perhaps most important—while doing this, a critical thinker always strives to be open-minded and fair-minded . That’s not easy: It demands that you constantly question your assumptions and biases and that you always remain open to considering opposing views.

In today’s polarized environment, many people think of themselves as critical thinkers simply because they ask skeptical questions—often directed at, say, certain government policies or ideas espoused by those on the “other side” of the political divide. The problem is, they may not be asking these questions with an open mind or a willingness to fairly consider opposing views.

When people do this, they’re engaging in “weak-sense critical thinking”—a term popularized by the late Richard Paul, a co-founder of The Foundation for Critical Thinking . “Weak-sense critical thinking” means applying the tools and practices of critical thinking—questioning, investigating, evaluating—but with the sole purpose of confirming one’s own bias or serving an agenda.

In AMBQ , I lay out a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you’re thinking critically. Here are some of the questions to consider:

Why do I believe what I believe?
Are my views based on evidence?
Have I fairly and thoughtfully considered differing viewpoints?
Am I truly open to changing my mind?

Of course, becoming a better critical thinker is not as simple as just asking yourself a few questions. Critical thinking is a habit of mind that must be developed and strengthened over time. In effect, you must train yourself to think in a manner that is more effortful, aware, grounded, and balanced.

For those interested in giving themselves a crash course in critical thinking—something I did myself, as I was working on my book—I thought it might be helpful to share a list of some of the books that have shaped my own thinking on this subject. As a self-interested author, I naturally would suggest that you start with the new 10th-anniversary edition of A More Beautiful Question , but beyond that, here are the top eight critical-thinking books I’d recommend.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan

This book simply must top the list, because the late scientist and author Carl Sagan continues to be such a bright shining light in the critical thinking universe. Chapter 12 includes the details on Sagan’s famous “baloney detection kit,” a collection of lessons and tips on how to deal with bogus arguments and logical fallacies.

why should critical thinking and ethics be used together

Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments Into Extraordinary Results , by Shane Parrish

The creator of the Farnham Street website and host of the “Knowledge Project” podcast explains how to contend with biases and unconscious reactions so you can make better everyday decisions. It contains insights from many of the brilliant thinkers Shane has studied.

Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes

A brilliant, comprehensive 2021 book on critical thinking that, to my mind, hasn’t received nearly enough attention . The scientist Grimes dissects bad thinking, shows why it persists, and offers the tools to defeat it.

Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know , by Adam Grant

Intellectual humility—being willing to admit that you might be wrong—is what this book is primarily about. But Adam, the renowned Wharton psychology professor and bestselling author, takes the reader on a mind-opening journey with colorful stories and characters.

Think Like a Detective: A Kid's Guide to Critical Thinking , by David Pakman

The popular YouTuber and podcast host Pakman—normally known for talking politics —has written a terrific primer on critical thinking for children. The illustrated book presents critical thinking as a “superpower” that enables kids to unlock mysteries and dig for truth. (I also recommend Pakman’s second kids’ book called Think Like a Scientist .)

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters , by Steven Pinker

The Harvard psychology professor Pinker tackles conspiracy theories head-on but also explores concepts involving risk/reward, probability and randomness, and correlation/causation. And if that strikes you as daunting, be assured that Pinker makes it lively and accessible.

How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion , by David McRaney

David is a science writer who hosts the popular podcast “You Are Not So Smart” (and his ideas are featured in A More Beautiful Question ). His well-written book looks at ways you can actually get through to people who see the world very differently than you (hint: bludgeoning them with facts definitely won’t work).

A Healthy Democracy's Best Hope: Building the Critical Thinking Habit , by M Neil Browne and Chelsea Kulhanek

Neil Browne, author of the seminal Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, has been a pioneer in presenting critical thinking as a question-based approach to making sense of the world around us. His newest book, co-authored with Chelsea Kulhanek, breaks down critical thinking into “11 explosive questions”—including the “priors question” (which challenges us to question assumptions), the “evidence question” (focusing on how to evaluate and weigh evidence), and the “humility question” (which reminds us that a critical thinker must be humble enough to consider the possibility of being wrong).

Warren Berger is a longtime journalist and author of A More Beautiful Question .

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

WHAT IS CRITICAL ETHICS AND WHY IT MATTERS

2021, Academia Letters

Critical Ethics (as a unified account of normative and meta-ethics) uses critical thinking to get around the limitations of personal belief and indoctrination to get to what ought to be done and why to improve the human condition. For, if we teach only moral beliefs (whether as a set of absolutistic or relativistic normative codes)—no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be to a particular culture or community—the adherent will have a hard time distinguishing, or simply may not be able to distinguish, good from bad as an act of personal responsibility and free choice. Moreover, without critical thinking the adherent could possibly end-up believing all kinds of false or inconsistent things and moral beliefs may well end-up in conflict with better established background information. This would very likely lead to cognitive dissonance and inconsistency in a person’s actions; and, when generalized, would have devastating consequences for the survival of the human species because a person’s beliefs would not align or match with (at times dangerous) reality. Accordingly, it is crucial that we learn how to evaluate and to select among alternatives to do the thing that must be done, when it ought to be done, using critical thinking.

Related Papers

Problems of Education in the 21st Century

Bojan Borstner

JOHN MOHAN RAZU , Ignace Haaz

Review involves inter-phasing philosophy, ethics and education and the ways with which the author applies these concepts and categories.

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children

Mark Weinstein

Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi

Katariina Holma

In this article, I will introduce and explore the critical spirit component of critical thinking and defend it as significant for the adequate conceptualization of critical thinking as an educational aim. The idea of critical spirit has been defended among others by such eminent supporters of critical thinking as John Dewey, Israel Scheffler, and Harvey Siegel but has not thus far been explored and analyzed sufficiently. I will argue that the critical spirit has, in addition to cognitive, also moral and emotional dimensions. Finally, I will touch upon some critiques which see that critical thinking either does not or ought not to involve moral or emotional dimensions.

abdulrahman alshahrani

ABSTRACT: Critical thinking is essential in making a sound judgment and addressing concerns in real life. The importance of this seemingly small sphere hinges on its philosophical aspects and ability to blend one's common sense with reason, intellectual empathy, perseverance, and knowledge. From this perspective, my paper demonstrates how critical thinking can be practically used to solve society's issues. It articulates the best way of changing people's perception of this broad discipline. By examining relevant articles, specifically, <em>The Bell</em> by Iris Murdoch, I demonstrate how society can gain a precise sense of reality. Also, I delve on how people can solve their problems without assumptions and clouded misgivings. Fictitious characters are vastly used to illustrate how critical thinkers can design appropriate solutions to overcome society's competitive scenarios through situational analysis and evaluation of the environment. I review Murdoch&...

Daniel Fasko

Globethics.net

Ignace Haaz

This book aims at six important conceptual tools developed by philosophers. The author develops each particular view in a chapter, hoping to constitute at the end a concise, interesting and easily readable whole. These concepts are: 1. Ethics and realism: elucidation of the distinction between understanding and explanation – the lighthouse type of normativity. 2. Leadership, antirealism and moral psychology – the lightning rod type of normativity. 3. Bright light on self-identity and positive reciprocity – the reciprocity type of normativity. 4. The virtue of generosity and its importance for inclusive education – the divine will type of normativity. 5. Ethical education as normative philosophical perspective. The normativity of self-transformation in education. 6. Aesthetics as expression of human freedom and concern for the whole world in which we live.

Tiou Clarke

One skill that many people today are lacking is the ability to assess situations and objectively develop solutions that can fix the issue at the same time, not to the detriment of another. Not many people can ask the right questions to get quality answers that can create new knowledge. The average man might not even understand what it means to think critically as he is used to his own way of thinking. This way may not be the best way, but it is the way he knows how. Critical thinking no doubt has become an integral part of education, the world of work, and even our regular life. The aim of this article is to dissect what is critical thinking by providing an in-depth view of what this means over the years and providing a little background on the idea of critical thinking and the foundation that gave rise to this. This article will also talk about the critical aspects of this form of thinking as well as some critical questions that can be asked to further develop thinking. This assignment will also assess the application of critical thinking to different situations as well as assessment instruments that can be used to measure critical thinking. The article will conclude with a new definition of critical thinking as well as a five-step process for critical thinking.

The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Theory

Titus Stahl

Alessandra Imperio

Il pensiero critico (CT) è considerato un'abilità chiave per il successo nel 21° secolo. Le politiche educative mondiali sostengono la promozione del CT e ricercatori di diverse aree disciplinari sono stati coinvolti in un ampio dibattito sulla sua definizione, senza raggiungere un accordo. Al giorno d'oggi, la ricerca non ha affron-tato compiutamente la valutazione del CT, né il modo in cui dovrebbe essere insegnato. Nel presente lavoro, viene fornita una panoramica sull'argomento, nonché una valutazione delle pratiche, al fine di fornire a ricercatori o professionisti (in particolare quelli della scuola primaria) un riferimento per lo sviluppo di ulteriori teorie e metodi sull'educazione al CT. Il CT è considerato dal punto di vista della filosofia, della psicologia co-gnitiva e delle scienze dell'educazione. Inoltre proponiamo l'inclusione di una quarta prospettiva, che potrebbe essere definita della pedagogia socio-culturale, per le sue importanti implicazioni sull'insegnamento e nelle pratiche valutative. Critical thinking (CT) is considered a key skill for success in the 21st century. Worldwide educational policies advocate the promotion of CT, and scholars across different fields have been involved in a wide debate on its definition, without reaching an agreement. Currently, research has not adequately addressed CT assessment, nor the way in which it should be taught. In the present work, an overview of the topic is provided, as well as an evaluation of the practices, in order to provide researchers or practitioners (particularly those involved in primary school education) a reference for the development of further theories and methods about CT in education. CT is considered from the perspective of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and education sciences. In addition, we propose the inclusion of a fourth perspective, which could be referred as socio-cultural pedagogic perspective, due to its important implications in teaching and assessment practices.

RELATED PAPERS

Ivan Blanco

Allergy & Rhinology

sourabha patro

Academic Emergency Medicine

Hiwote Shawargga

Scientific reports

Kamil Sarıtaş

Ziphozakhe Mashologu

Matéria (Rio de Janeiro)

Selma Venâncio

Methodology

Klaus Krippendorff

Journal of Medicine

Quazi Tarikul Islam

Mohd. Kholil Fizri

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

carlos vale

Zsuzsa Turiné Farkas

Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology

Amnon Sintov

Luis Enrique Espinosa Torres

Aaron T. Asare

Circulation

Jérôme Roncalli

BMC Oral Health

Lena Cetrelli

Contemporary Mathematics

Robert Guralnick

Luciana Cerati

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Brayan Estiven Diaz Rodriguez

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

GOKUL NATH M

Ecosystem Services

Donovan Kotze

PROBLEMS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY AND PALEOGEOGRAPHY OF THE UKRANIAN CARPATHIANS AND ADJACENT AREAS

Galyna Bayrak

Peter Le Roux

Journal of Applied Oral Science

Gianni Di Girolamo

RSC Advances

Sadaf Bashir Khan

How Is Critical Thinking Different From Ethical Thinking?

By Linda Fisher Thornton

Ethical thinking and critical thinking are both important and it helps to understand how we need to use them together to make decisions.

Critical thinking helps us narrow our choices. Ethical thinking includes values as a filter to guide us to a choice that is ethical.
Using critical thinking, we may discover an opportunity to exploit a situation for personal gain. It’s ethical thinking that helps us realize it would be unethical to take advantage of that exploit.

Develop An Ethical Mindset Not Just Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be applied without considering how others will be impacted. This kind of critical thinking is self-interested and myopic.

“Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one’s groups’, vested interest.” Defining Critical Thinking, The Foundation For Critical Thinking

Critical thinking informed by ethical values is a powerful leadership tool. Critical thinking that sidesteps ethical values is sometimes used as a weapon.

When we develop leaders, the burden is on us to be sure the mindsets we teach align with ethical thinking. Otherwise we may be helping people use critical thinking to stray beyond the boundaries of ethical business.

Unl eash the Positive Power of Ethical Leadership

Join the Conversation!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Thinking Ethically

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Ethics Resources
Ethical Decision Making

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is ; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Which course of action advances the common good?

Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
–––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
–––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
–––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
–––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
–––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
–––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
–––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
–––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
–––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
–––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
–––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
–––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
–––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
–––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
–––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
–––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
–––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
–––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
–––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
–––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
–––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
–––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
–––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
–––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
–––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
–––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
–––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
–––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
–––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
–––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
–––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
–––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
–––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
–––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
–––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
–––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
–––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
–––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
–––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
–––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
–––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
–––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
–––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
–––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
–––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
–––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
–––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
–––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
–––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
Foundation for Critical Thinking
Insight Assessment
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
The Critical Thinking Consortium
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Search Search Search …
Search Search …

The Connection between Critical Thinking and Ethics: Unraveling the Link

The connection between critical thinking and ethics is a significant one, as both concepts play crucial roles in decision-making and problem-solving. Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information to reach well-founded conclusions, while ethics involves the principles and standards that guide our behavior.

Both critical thinking and ethics are closely related, as the former enables individuals to discern between right and wrong, fact and fiction, and develop a deeper understanding of complex issues. By using critical thinking skills, individuals can approach ethical dilemmas from diverse perspectives and make informed decisions based on logic and reason. This relationship is essential in helping us navigate the world around us and make morally responsible choices.

Developing a strong sense of critical thinking and ethical awareness is crucial for individuals to become responsible citizens and decision-makers. When applied together, these skills allow people to engage in a balanced and rational examination of various ethical issues, thereby promoting fair judgment and responsible action within their personal and professional lives.

The Concepts of Critical Thinking and Ethics

Defining critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal, but its definition is contested. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , critical thinking can be understood as careful thinking directed toward a goal. It involves the ability to analyze information, identify biases, and evaluate the credibility of sources, ultimately leading to better decision-making.

Defining Ethics

Ethics, on the other hand, deals with moral principles that govern an individual’s or group’s behavior. It is the study of what is right or wrong and how we should act in various situations. Ethical reasoning involves the application of moral values to guide actions and decisions in various contexts.

When combined, critical thinking and ethics create a powerful framework for evaluating multiple perspectives and making informed choices. The development of these skills is crucial for both personal and professional growth. The interconnected nature of these concepts is crucial in understanding their relevance in various aspects of life.

The Importance of Critical Thinking in Ethical Decision-Making

Critical thinking plays a vital role in ethical decision-making by providing the tools needed to carefully evaluate situations, examine various perspectives, and make informed choices that align with personal and professional values without making exaggerated or false claims.

Recognizing Ethical Issues

Utilizing critical thinking skills enables individuals to examine situations from multiple perspectives , identify potential issues and risks, and recognize ethical dilemmas by reducing the impact of cognitive biases. By analyzing situations and questioning assumptions, critical thinking allows people to recognize ethical problems that may otherwise go unnoticed.

Evaluating Ethical Choices

In the process of ethical decision-making, critical thinking plays a key role in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each available option. It helps individuals to determine whether or not something is right or wrong , taking into account both facts and values. This evaluation helps in understanding the basis of one’s beliefs and decisions and in considering alternative solutions before making choices.

Implementing Ethical Solutions

Once ethical issues have been recognized and evaluated, critical thinking aids in the implementation of ethical solutions. It allows individuals to weigh the consequences of each action, taking into account the possible impacts on stakeholders and the broader society. Critical thinking promotes conscious, well-informed decisions that are in line with personal and professional beliefs, ensuring that the chosen solutions consider all possible outcomes and adhere to the principles of ethical decision-making.

Section 4: Developing Critical Thinking and Ethical Reasoning Skills

The connection between critical thinking and ethics is crucial in fostering a questioning mindset and promoting reasoned decision-making. To develop these skills, we will discuss the role of education and curricula, as well as exercises and practice in cultivating ethical critical thinkers.

Education and Curricula

Integrating ethical reasoning into education is an essential step for promoting fairminded critical thinking. Teachers must be aware of the risk of inadvertently fostering sophistic critical thinking if ethics are not addressed in the curriculum (source) . To develop students’ ethical understanding, educators should use inquiry-based learning methods, which encourage a questioning mindset (source) .

By incorporating ethical reasoning into educational programs, students learn to operationalize their reflective questioning skills as the basis for ethical decision-making. Understanding the various ethical frameworks and perspectives can help students think critically and make well-reasoned decisions in complex situations (source) .

Exercises and Practice

Regular practice in dealing with ethical dilemmas and ambiguities allows students to strengthen their critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. Exercises that ask students to define problems, examine evidence, analyze assumptions and biases, and consider other interpretations are effective in fostering critical thinking (source) .

Using real-life ethical dilemmas in activities not only helps students to engage with the material but also promotes reasoning and justification skills vital for informed citizenship (source) . Some exercises that can be utilized include:

Debates on controversial ethical issues
Case studies and role-playing exercises
Reflection papers and group discussions
Analysis of ethical dilemmas in various scenarios

Frequent practice of these activities will help students develop a strong foundation in critical thinking and ethical reasoning, enabling them to make well-informed decisions in their personal and professional lives.

Section 5: Challenges and Limitations

Cognitive biases.

One of the challenges of integrating critical thinking with ethics is addressing cognitive biases. Cognitive biases can cloud our judgment and affect our ability to make ethical decisions. Developing critical thinking skills can help reveal these biases and enable us to make more objective decisions.

Emotional Influence

Another challenge in connecting critical thinking and ethics is emotional influence. Our emotions can significantly impact our ability to think critically and ethically. Emotional experiences may lead to hasty decisions without considering ethical implications. To overcome this challenge, individuals must learn to balance emotion and reason, allowing them to maintain a neutral perspective during decision-making processes.

Cultural Differences

Lastly, cultural differences can create a barrier when trying to foster the relationship between critical thinking and ethics. Different cultures often have unique ethical values and practices, making it difficult to establish universal ethical principles. Understanding and respecting these differences is crucial in mitigating the potential for miscommunication and ethical conflicts.

By addressing challenges such as cognitive biases, emotional influence, and cultural differences, individuals can further strengthen the connection between critical thinking and ethics. This integration is essential for making informed, ethical decisions within diverse global communities.

In conclusion, the relationship between critical thinking and ethics is a fundamental aspect of how we make decisions in our daily lives. Critical thinking allows us to see the world from different perspectives and to make ethical decisions based on our understanding and analysis of facts.

As we develop our critical thinking skills, we become better at distinguishing right from wrong , which in turn helps us navigate complex ethical situations. This process involves analyzing and observing our own biases and beliefs, as well as evaluating the facts at hand.

The importance of this relationship cannot be understated, as it influences the choices we make and their impact on ourselves and others. Developing a strong foundation in critical thinking not only allows us to make informed and ethical decisions but also contributes to a deeper understanding of the world and the various perspectives within it.

Best Apps for Problem Solving: Top Picks for Effective Solutions

In today’s fast-paced and technology-driven world, problem-solving skills are becoming increasingly crucial for personal and professional success. It is important to recognize […]

Critical Thinking job interview questions

In all areas of work the applicants have their own reasons for applying for a position, and the main aim of the […]

Critical thinking and Decision making

Have you ever wondered about critical thinking and decision making, and how these two concepts link to represent a common process of […]

Riddles for creative thinking

Creative thinking is a person’s ability to figure out solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems by conceiving innovative ideas that conventional or logical […]

Critical Thinking, Creativity, Ethical Reasoning: A Unity of Opposites

First Online: 01 January 2009

Cite this chapter

Richard Paul 3 &
Linda Elder 4

2502 Accesses

6 Citations

In this chapter, we argue for an intimate interrelationship between critical thinking, creative thinking and ethical reasoning. Indeed we argue for an underlying unity between them. We begin by establishing the interdependence of criticality and creativity in the life of the mind. That life is manifest in three basic forms: uncriticality, sophistic criticality, and Socratic criticality. Each of these forms of thought implies an ethically significant pattern, which we illuminate. This leads to the challenge of living an ethical life when humans so routinely confuse ethics with other modes of thinking. Thus, the most common “counterfeits” of ethics are analyzed at length. The chapter concludes with some important implications of the absence of any one of the triad in human thought, given their innate dependence on one another.

Ever since the nineteenth century, and increasingly thereafter, knowledge, reasoning, and insight have become more and more specialized and compartmentalized. The threads that unify them have become obscured. The threads that diversify them are now highlighted. Yet life itself is not compartmentalized. Reality does not offer itself up to us in sealed compartments. The various dimensions of who we are interact and interrelate. So it is with modes of thinking. The critical and creative dimensions of thought interpenetrate and interface with our capacity to reflect ethically. Each of the three is better understood in relation to the other two. Each deepens and develops one another.

If we would understand the creative mind, then we must study the manner in which it is dependent on criticality. If we would understand the critical mind, then we must study the way it is dependent on creativity. If we would understand the highest levels of criticality and creativity, we must study their dependence on ethical reflection. Intellectual work is a common denominator of all three: creativity, criticality, and ethical reflection. Intellectual constructs are their shared products (constructs such as novels, editorials, critiques). Intellectual traits are what take them to higher levels of functioning. Let us consider first how to overcome the dichotomy between thought that is fundamentally creative and thought that is fundamentally critical.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

For deeper understanding of intellectual virtues, see Paul & Elder ( 2006a ).

The U.S. now has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any other country in the world (recently surpassing Russia) (Human Rights Watch, August 2008 )

See the website of Amnesty International for acts that are unethical in themselves: http://www.amnesty.org/

Human Rights Watch (2008). http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/usdom12292.htm

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Meier, A. (2003). Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall . New York: W.W. Norton.

Moore, B., Jr. (2000). Moral Purity and Persecution in History . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1948). United Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2006a). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006b). The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foundation for Critical Thinking, P.O. BOX 220, Dillon Beach, CA, 94929, USA

Richard Paul

Foundation for Critical Thinking, P.O. BOX 220, Dillon Beach, CA, 94929

Linda Elder

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Richard Paul or Linda Elder .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Paul, R., Elder, L. (2009). Critical Thinking, Creativity, Ethical Reasoning: A Unity of Opposites. In: Cross, T., Ambrose, D. (eds) Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89368-6_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89368-6_8

Published : 12 February 2009

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-89367-9

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-89368-6

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Main Library of Critical Thinking Resources
Defining Critical Thinking
About Critical Thinking
Fundamentals of Critical Thinking
Richard Paul Anthology Classic
Documenting the Problem
Higher Education Instruction
K-12 Instruction Strategies & Samples
For Students
Issues in Critical Thinking
The Questioning Mind
Reading Backwards: Classic Books Online

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education

Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Throughout their lives, students will face a broad range of ethical issues and questions. Thus it is essential that they learn the foundational ethical principles and understandings requisite to skilled ethical reasoning.

The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Much human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We are capable of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives. We are capable of helping or harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we are doing the one and when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others.

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those that enhance the well being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism. Developing one’s ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice, self-justification, and self-deception. These pathological tendencies are exacerbated by powerful ethnocentric or sociocentric influences that shape our lives. These tendencies can be actively combated only through the systematic cultivation of fair-mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of others.

Nearly everyone gives at least lip service to a common core of general ethical principles—for example, that it is morally wrong to cheat, deceive, exploit, abuse, harm, or steal from others, that everyone has an ethical responsibility to respect the rights of others, including their freedom and well-being, to help those most in need of help, to seek the common good and not merely their own self-interest and egocentric pleasures, to strive in some way to make the world more just and humane.

Unfortunately, mere verbal agreement on ethical principles will not accomplish important ethical ends nor change the world for the better. Ethical principles mean something only when manifested in behavior. They have force only when embodied in action. Yet to put them into action requires a combination of intellectual skills and ethical insights.

One ethical insight all humans need to acquire is that ethics is frequently confused with other divergent modes of thought that often leads to a failure to act ethically (while assuming oneself to be acting ethically). Skilled ethical thinkers routinely distinguish ethics from domains such as social conventions (conventional thinking), religion (theological thinking), and the law (legal thinking).

When ethics is confused with these very different modes of thinking it is not uncommon for conflicting social values and taboos to be treated as if they were universal ethical principles.

Thus, religious ideologies, social “rules,” and laws are often mistakenly taken to be inherently ethical in nature. If we were to accept this amalgamation of domains, then by implication every practice within any religious system would necessarily be ethical, every social rule ethically obligatory, and every law ethically justified.

If religion were to define ethics, we could not then judge any religious practices— for example torturing unbelievers or burning them alive—as ethical. In the same way, if ethical and conventional thinking were one and the same, every social practice within any culture would necessarily be ethically obligatory—including Nazi Germany. We could not, then, condemn any social traditions, norms, and taboos from an ethical standpoint—however ethically bankrupt they were. What’s more, if the law defined ethics, then by implication politicians and lawyers would be experts on ethics and every law they finagled to get on the books would take on the status of an ethical truth.

It is essential, then, to differentiate ethics from modes of thinking commonly confused with ethics. We must remain free to critique commonly accepted social conventions, religious practices, political ideas, and laws using ethical concepts not defined by them. No one lacking this ability will become proficient in ethical reasoning.

Distinguishing Ethics From Religion

Religious variability derives from the fact that theological beliefs are intrinsically subject to debate. There are an unlimited number of alternative ways for people to conceive and account for the nature of the “spiritual.” Throughout history there have been hundreds of differing religious belief systems. These traditional ways of believing adopted by social groups or cultures often take on the force of habit and custom. They are then handed down from one generation to another. To the individuals in any given group, their particular beliefs seem to them to be the ONLY way, or the only REASONABLE way, to conceive of the “divine.” They cannot see that their religious beliefs are just one set among many possible religious belief systems.

Theological reasoning answers metaphysical questions such as:

What is the origin of all things? Is there a God? Is there more than one God? If there is a God, what is his/her nature? Are there ordained divine laws expressed by God to guide our life and behavior? If so, what are these laws? How are they communicated to us? What must we do to live in keeping with the will of the divine?

Examples of Religious Beliefs Being Confused with Ethical Principles:

Members of majority religious groups often enforce their beliefs on minorities.
Members of religious groups often act as if their theological views are self-evidently true, scorning those who hold other views.
Members of religious groups often fail to recognize that “sin” is a theological concept, not an ethical one. (“Sin” is theologically defined.)
Divergent religions define sin in different ways (but often expect their views to be enforced on all others as if a matter of universal ethics).

Because beliefs about divinity and spirituality are not based in ethical concepts and principles, they are not compulsory. There is no definitive way to prove any single set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of all others. For that reason religious freedom is a human right. One can objectively prove that murder and assault are harmful, but not that non-belief in God is.

Consider this example: If a religious group were to believe that the firstborn male of every family must be sacrificed, every person in that group would think themselves ethically obligated to kill their firstborn male. Their religious beliefs would lead them to unethical behavior.

That ethical judgment must trump religious belief is shown by the undeniable fact that many persons have been tortured and/or murdered by people motivated by religious zeal or conviction. Indeed religious persecution is commonplace in human history. Even today, religious persecution and religiously motivated atrocities are commonplace. No religious belief as such can justify violations of basic human rights.

In short, theological beliefs cannot override ethical principles. We must turn to ethical principles to protect ourselves from intolerant and oppressive religious practices.

Distinguishing Ethics From the Law

It is important that students learn to distinguish ethics from the law. What is illegal may or may not be a matter of ethics. What is ethically obligatory may be illegal. What is unethical may be legal. There is no essential connection between ethics and the law.

Laws often emerge out of social conventions and taboos. And, because we cannot assume that social conventions are ethical, we cannot assume that human laws are ethical. The case of Oscar Wilde offers a paradigm case of social taboos and conventions guiding the law. In 1895, Wilde was convicted of sodomy for engaging in homosexual acts, which were a felony in England at that time. At sentencing, the judge said “It is the worst case I have ever tried…the crime of which you have been convicted is so bad that one has to put stern restraint upon one’s self to prevent one’s self from describing, in language which I would rather not use, the sentiments which must rise to the breast of every man of ho nor who has heard of the details…People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame…I shall, under such circumstances, be expected to pass the severest sentence that the law allows. In my judgment it is totally inadequate for such as case as this.” Wilde was sentenced to 2 years hard labor and died only a few short years after his release.

Examples of Laws Being Confused with Ethics:

Many sexual practices (such as homosexuality) have been unjustly punished with life imprisonment or death (under the laws of one society or another).
Many societies have enforced unjust laws based on racist views.
Many societies have enforced laws that discriminated against women and/or children.
Many societies have made torture and/or slavery legal.

Distinguishing Ethics From Social Conventions

To understand why people often do not reason well through ethical issues, it is essential to recognize that humans are routinely socially conditioned. We do not begin life with the ability to critique social norms and taboos. Yet unless we learn to critique the social mores and taboos imposed upon us from birth, we will accept those traditions as unquestionably “right.”

For instance, many western countries once considered slavery to be justified and desirable. It was part of social custom. Moreover, throughout history, many groups of people, including people of various nationalities and skin colors, as well as females, children, and individuals with disabilities, have been victims of discrimination as the result of social conventions wrongly treated as ethically obligatory.

Cultural diversity derives from the fact that there are an unlimited number of alternative ways for social groups to satisfy their needs and fulfill their desires. Those traditional ways of living within a social group or culture take on the force of habit and custom. They are handed down from one generation to another. To the individuals in a given group they seem to be the only way, or the only reasonable way, to do things. And these social customs often legitimate unethical behaviors.

Schools traditionally (and unintentionally) function as apologists for conventional thought; academics often inadvertently foster confusion between conventional morality and universal ethics. In doing so they fail to lay a foundation for education that emancipates the mind. They fail to foster the intellectual skills that enable students to distinguish cultural mores from ethical precepts, social commandments from ethical truths. They, along with their students, fail to see that whenever social beliefs and taboos conflict with ethical principles, ethical principles should prevail. They fail to see categorical distinctions essential to all ethical reasoning.

Examples of social conventions confused with ethics :

· Many societies have created taboos against showing various parts of the body and have severely punished those who violated them.

· Many societies have created taboos against giving women the same rights as men.

· Many societies have socially legitimized religious persecution.

· Many societies have socially stigmatized interracial marriages.

Acts That are Unethical In-and-of-Themselves

For any action to be unethical, it must deny another person or creature some inalienable right. Such unethical acts include slavery, genocide, sexism, racism, murder, assault, rape, fraud, deceit, intimidation, imprisoning people for acts that are not in themselves unethical, and torturing animals.

Unspeakable suffering occurs because the logic of ethical reasoning is obscured in many human interactions. Humans don’t tend to think critically about ethics, religion, ideology, social conventions and the law. The result is that most people often fail to see how what they consider a matter of “ethics” is often not grounded in ethical principles. The categorical distinctions running through this article document some of the essential understandings indispensable for skilled ethical reasoning. Thus much should be clear: as long as we continue to confuse these very different domains of thought, we will never have the foundations for creating a just world.

This article can be found on the website of the Foundation for Critical Thinking: www.criticalthinking.org , published November 19, 2011

To learn more about ethical reasoning see: The Thinker’s Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, 2006.

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking! Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

EthicsBowl.org

International Hub for all things Ethics Bowl

Critical Thinking and Ethics

I’d like to thank Matt Deaton for introducing me to Ethics Bowl at this year’s American Philosophical Association (APA) Eastern Division conference.

Given my own mission to help students (of any age) develop their critical-thinking skills (through books like Critical Thinking from MIT Press and my LogicCheck site that uses the news of the day to teach critical-thinking techniques) I’m drawn to situations where facts alone cannot provide answers on what to do.

In situations when we have to decide what to do in the future, we can’t fact-check things that haven’t happened yet, but we can argue over which choice to make. We can also never know with certainty what is going on inside other people’s heads, which requires us to argue over motives and motivations, rather than claim to know them without doubt.

Similarly, only the most trivial ethical dilemmas can be resolved by appealing to facts of the matter. For the kind of complex dilemmas we face in the real world, such as those students grapple with when they participate in Ethics Bowl, we need to argue things out. And arguing well is what you learn by studying critical thinking.

With that in mind, I was inspired to start a series over at LogicCheck that applies different critical-thinking principles to specific cases in this year’s Ethics Bowl national case set . The first looks at how the ability to peer through persuasive language (commonly referred to as rhetoric) to see through wording that might pre-suppose an answer to a problem. A second piece shows how hidden premises , statements implied but not stated in arguments, often contain the most important points we are need to discuss.

I hope to continue this series by looking at other cases in light of the critical-thinker’s toolkit that involves skills such as controlling for bias and media and information literacy. In each of these postings, I will endeavor to introduce students to productive ways of thinking about ethical issues and avoid telling them what to think about them.

So thanks again to Matt for letting me post here at his Ethics Bowl site. Thanks as well to everyone involved with this fantastic program, and to all the students and teachers participating in it.

Happy deliberating!

~Jonathan Haber~

Session 3: Critical Thinking Expanded to Ethical Decision-Making Video Transcript

[Rose Proctor] So let's recap a little bit around effective communication and critical thinking. So we talked about that effective communication is having that ability to display appropriate listening, nonverbal, verbal, interpersonal, and written skills. At the same time, being able to send a consistent, clear, concise and courteous message that's easily understood by the receiving party. Also challenging ourselves to ask questions, right? And understand, clarify, summarize, and provide feedback to ensure that the message has been understood by the receiving party. Whereas critical thinking starts to challenge us on our abilities to analyze facts versus assumptions, use logical approaches to form an accurate, objective decision or plan of action. Recognize and clearly define the problem that's in front of us. What are we trying to solve?

What are you critically thinking about? Determining the causes for those Identifying, prioritizing and selecting alternative solutions as outcomes to those problems and then implementing those solutions and even for very complex and difficult decisions. That is what employers are looking for when they talk about effective communication and your ability to problem solve or critically think. So what does having the ability to critically think really mean, right? That's what we were kind of building up in the last section. Let's talk about a few steps. So step one, I want you to be able to separate and understand that there are facts and there are assumptions. Getting beyond your opinion is really important when you're talking about critical thinking in the context of your career. Step 2 gather and consider evidence and evaluate from different ethical perspectives. We're going to provide you an ethical decision making framework. This framework was never meant to make a decision and then find part of the framework that supports that decision, although that's typically what we see in people when they're talking about kind of their decision making skills. It was really meant for critical thinking that naturally all of these ethical frameworks and the different ethical lenses within it contradict each other. And what was meant to happen was to take what you're thinking through each one of these Lenses, through the framework and come to a better, more sound ethical decision.

Instead of making a decision and then finding something to support it. So let's kind of dive into that step two a little bit more around ethical decision making in that Framework. Well there are four ethical lenses, so to speak, as unique as we think we all are, we kind of are creatures of habits in most things, and we have preferences. Our decision making is really no different. It just depends on if you've given enough thought to how you think, right? That kind of metacognition which is just thinking about how you think on whether or not you understand and know those preferences for yourself. So self awareness is really crucial around critical thinking and decision making, but we talk about ethical decision making, here's a framework to help you with that. In that first lens we're talking about a responsibilities lens. The big thing here you guys are not going to understand and probably remember after this video all these big higher education theories on ethics. This lens predominantly aligns with deontology or a deontological perspective, if you want to look that up. But really, the one word here to remember is structure. I want to challenge you to remember that word as you're making decisions. What is the structure to the problem or the situation that I'm making a decision about? What's the structure to the communication lines, right? Around authorities or modes of communication? So structure is all of that, exactly what you think, right? Maybe where you start is is it legal?

It's a great place to start. Laws, policies, procedures, cultural norms, right? All of these things are structural aspects to the decision at hand or the problem that you're trying to solve. The next ethical lens is is wrapped around justice theories. You know around equality and fairness and all these types of things. It's relationship focused, but the one word to remember is stakeholders. So what does it mean to be a stakeholder? It just means that that individual or maybe organization or group of people, whatever that is that you're defining as a stakeholder, has some kind of impact from your decision. So for you guys, as high school students, maybe you're making a decision on whether or not you're going to college. Maybe you're moving away. Some of the stakeholders in that, are you, yourself. Maybe you have a job already, so your current employer, your parents, have probably a big impact from that. If you have a significant other right.

These are all different stakeholders that actually have kind of an impact from your decision. The next lens is a results lens, so maybe you've heard the theory around utilitarianism or consequentialism. Or maybe you know just what's best for the greater good. All of these types of things fall in that ethical perspective. But the one word to remember is outcome. So I want to challenge you guys to think about what are the possible alternative outcomes to the decision that you're making and not just the outcome that you desire, right? But be thinking about even undesirable outcomes. What happens if that's the outcome from the decision that you're making? And then finally the last lens is a virtue ethics lens that's really challenging you on character, and it aligns with the word reputation. But we kind of challenge our students here at the University to think about the So what? This is the impact. This is what, you Know, what precedents are you setting?

How does this align with your own core values? How does it align with the values of the organization maybe that you're making that decision on behalf of? And so sometimes there's either a little bit of soul searching to understand your own personal values, or some research about your organization's values and how your decision is aligning or misaligning with those. So as you think about kind of making more ethical decisions, we want you to quickly be able to reference these types of of ethical lenses quickly, but with four words you can do that. Force yourself to critically think about what is the structure? Who are the stakeholders? What are some of the outcomes that are potential? And then what's the impact long-term?

I think ethics incorporation into any decision-making is very crucial because it's, it's kind of taking it from a different, a bigger perspective than your own. It's stuff that is generally accepted and held to be true, whereas stuff that you what you may believe in what you think is can be personal and you may have a reason for thinking what you think, which isn't wrong. But when you look at it from an ethical perspective, you're looking at it from something that's more socially acceptable or culturally acceptable, whatever different way you want to twist it, but. Whenever you look at something from an ethical perspective, you're you know it. You know it to be true, you know, and sometimes people have wrong ideas or wrong beliefs, and it's not necessarily on them for that issue, but it's that they aren't educated enough, and it's something that we need to focus on as a society to get educated on topics that are important, especially that are up to date, whether it be anything you know. You can, you can go into a lot of different situations for that, but I think thinking of it from ethical perspective makes you kind of understand that it is a lot bigger than yourself, and that there's very different perspectives, theories, lenses and stuff that you can use to make that decision.

So I think a lot of people do this sort of naturally. Most people don't actually think about their ethical framework and like their own personal ethics. They just kind of do what feels right. But a lot of times you know, depending on someone's background, what feels right to you may not be right to another person, so you have to look at the people around you and how they perceive things and make your decisions accordingly. In making decisions for myself, I have a sense of pride that I think is important. I wouldn't necessarily call it arrogance. It's just a bit of of a standard that I keep myself too. And when faced with a problem or situation in my decision is either you know the hard right or the easy wrong or the unethical verse or the ethical, immoral moral. Whenever you're faced with basically that fork in the road, regardless of the repercussions at the end of the day,

I've got to look myself in the mirror and be content with how I handled whatever situation or how I lived that day. And that's one of the biggest things that that I look at, especially with the hard right versus the easy wrong is that discipline that at the end of the day I'm answering to myself, even if even if the repercussions of that choice or that action affect nobody, then that's great. But like I said, end of the day I'm talking to myself in the mirror, and if there is bigger repercussions, then obviously there's more at scale than just letting yourself down or failing to keep yourself to whatever standard you said. Alright, so we have went through step one and Step 2. Let's now move on to step three as we talk about critical thinking in order to increase our ability to effectively communicate, Step three is having thoughtful consideration around the objections to your decision. Before you actually make that decision and put it out there as a final decision. So you're wanting to think about, you know, for instance, if your decision is a yes or no. If I'm a yes, why are other people a no?

What are those objections to someone being a yes on the problem or the decision that I'm making? If maybe we're taking an alternative solution or a different option, why would others select the other options? Really challenge yourself to think considerably about those objections. Step 4 is consideration of effectively communicating your decision and your reasoning right. You have to be able to explain it. As you guys start to get into leadership positions, you're much more visible, and it's not going to be acceptable to just make a good decision, but be able to effectively communicate that decision to others, and your reasoning for why you came to that decision is going to be crucial. And that's really what employers are pushing towards. So let's do a quick exercise together about making a decision and then effectively communicating that to others.

So now that we've completed that exercise together, we're going to continue our conversation around effective communication. Being able to increase that skill for ourselves. How critical thinking plays a role in that, and how we're using our ethical framework to assist in making more an ethical decisions. Well, now we're going to start talking about how all this needs to be taken in consideration both for your official and unofficial resumes. As you're getting out on the job market and applying for new positions.

Building Ethical Employability Videos

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: Breaking down critical thinking into categories

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 225895

WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Critical thinking is a set of skills designed to help the thinker analyze, assess and question a given situation or reading.
Critical thinking skills push the thinker to reject simplistic conclusions based on human irrationality, false assumptions, prejudices, biases and anecdotal evidence.
Critical thinking skills give thinkers confidence that they can see issues which are complex and which have several answers and points of view and that opinions and insights can change with new information.

WHAT DO CRITICAL THINKERS DO?

Consider all sides of an issue
Judge well the quality of an argument
Judge well the credibility of sources
Create convincing arguments using sound evidence and analysis
Effectively recognize and use ethos (ethics), pathos (empathy) and logos (logic) in argument

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

People will listen to and respect critical thinkers with these abilities because…

Considering all sides of an issue means they are open-minded, informed, and mindful of alternatives and other points of view.
Judging well the quality of an argument means they can effectively identify and evaluate another’s reasons, assumptions and conclusions and not be fooled into believing false or unsubstantiated claims.
Judging well the credibility of sources means they can recognize and present the most reputable, trustworthy and convincing evidence.
Creating convincing arguments using sound evidence and analysis means they can formulate plausible hypotheses and draw conclusions which are thoughtful and verifiable.
Effectively recognizing and using ethos, pathos and logos in argument means they construct well-crafted points using a balance of morality and ethics, consideration and empathy for others, as well as sound and logical reasoning.

HOW DO I USE CRITICAL THINKING?

Breaking down into categories how to analyze a topic or text (one written by you or another author) will help you examine it thoroughly and critically. Use these questions to assist you:

Clarity: Is it understandable and can the meaning be clearly grasped?

Is the main idea clear?
Can examples be added to better illustrate the points?
Are there confusing or unrelated points?

Accuracy: Is it free from errors or distortions—is it true?

Do I need to verify the truth of the claims?
Is credible evidence used correctly and fairly?
Is additional research needed?

Precision: Is it exact with specific details?

Can the wording be more exact?
Are the claims too general?
Are claims supported with concrete evidence?

Relevance: How does it relate to the topic or assignment?

Does it help illuminate the topic or assignment?
Does it provide new or important information?
Who does the content have the most relevance for?

Depth: Does it contain complexities and delve into the larger implications?

What are some of the complexities explored?
What are some of the difficulties that should be addressed?
What are the larger implications or impact?

Breadth: Does it encompass multiple viewpoints?

Do I need to look at this from another perspective?
What other people would have differing viewpoints?
Do I need to look at this in other ways?

Logic: Do the parts make sense together and are there no contradictions?

Do all the points work together logically to prove one clear argument?
Does one paragraph follow logically from the next?
Does the evidence directly prove the main points?

Significance: Does it focus on what is important?

Is this the most important aspect to consider?
Which of the facts or points are the most important?
Does it examine a larger significance?

Fairness: Is it justifiable and not self-serving or one-sided?

Do I have any vested interest in this issue that can affect my reaction?
Is personal bias or a hidden agenda driving the point?
Are the viewpoints of others sympathetically represented?

Use this chart to help you apply these critical thinking categories to a particular text or topic:

What is Ethics?

Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock

Click to print this chapter: What Is Ethics?

Welcome to Ethics! This field of study can be thought of in several ways, but for our purposes, we will think of Ethics as the study of applied value. [1] When we talk about Ethics, we are generally talking about one of three things:

Descriptive Ethics
Normative Ethics, or

Descriptive Ethics is describing what and how a person or group thinks about right and wrong. The goal is to understand the Other. Here we are not attempting to evaluate the Other’s positions. We will not be spending much time doing descriptive ethics – we will leave that to the fields of Religious Studies, Sociology, History, et cetera.

Normative Ethics is the process of figuring out what is morally permissible or impermissible by applying a moral theory to a given problem or situation. The goal is to figure out what is right and wrong. Another way of saying this is that normative ethics is the do-ing of ethics. We will be spending a portion of our time in this course doing normative ethics. You will encounter lots of moral dilemmas, thought experiments, and historical reflections that will challenge you to coherently apply a given (or your own) moral approach to the problem to create solutions.

Metaethics is the process of thinking about Ethics itself. [2] This is what we will primarily be concerning ourselves with in this class. Some questions we will cover will include the following.

What is the nature of value? Is it a fiction, created, or discovered?
What beings are valuable (and to what degree)?
What is the right or wrong making feature of our actions?
What determines a valuable life (the good life)?

We will also look at various moral theories that have been posed as methods of determining what is moral and immoral. Major approaches include:

Natural Law Theory,
Utilitarianism,
Deontology, and
Virtue Ethics.

Our goal here is to understand the nature of Ethics and determine which ethical approaches are worthwhile. We might ask if the approach is coherent (consistent with itself without contradiction), complete (is able to address most ethical questions), pragmatic (is able to be lived out), et cetera. In this class, we will primarily be doing Metaethics.

Methods of Thinking about Ethical Problems [3]

Throughout this class, we will deal with ethical problems, situations in the abstract or real people’s lives in which we must make a moral determination (example of doing normative ethics). We begin with a hard case , one which might pull us in different directions.

Baby Theresa . Theresa is born an anencephalic infant, which means that she will never be conscious, though she may live for several months since she has a functioning brain-stem that controls respiration and other life-sustaining processes. Theresa’s parents are understandably devastated. After consulting with Theresa’s doctors, the parents make a decision: they request that Theresa’s healthy organs be removed, thereby killing her, and given to otherwise healthy children who will die if they do not receive an organ. The alternative is to donate Theresa’s organs after she dies, but as we wait for nature to take its course children will die who could have been saved, and Theresa’s organs will become less viable. [4]

Would it be ethically wrong to kill Baby Theresa in order to save the lives of other children?

How would we even begin to answer a question like this?

Some False Starts

Why not seek an answer to the question by…

Consulting the law?

But there may not be a law that covers the hard case, in which case the law will not offer us any guidance. More importantly, however:

Is the law a reliable guide to right and wrong? Let’s consider: can we think of actions (real or imagined, current or historical) that are legal but unethical? Can we think of actions that are illegal but ethical? If so – if legality and ethics can diverge – then the law probably isn’t a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.

Conducting an opinion poll?

But others may be as torn as we are concerning what to do, in which case an opinion poll won’t offer us any guidance. More importantly, however:

Are opinion polls a reliable guide to right and wrong? Let’s consider: can we think of actions that are (or were ) popularly approved of but unethical? Can we think of ethical actions that are not popularly approved of? If so – if popular opinion and ethics can diverge – then opinion polls will not be a reliable guide to determining the right thing to do.

Going with ‘gut feelings,’ or the dictates of conscience?

But especially when it comes to hard cases, we may not have clear feelings one way or the other—or, more likely still, our feelings might pull us in opposing directions, leading us to draw different conclusions about right and wrong. More importantly, however:

Are ‘gut feelings’ (or conscience) a reliable guide to right and wrong? Again, let’s apply the same divergence test we applied when considering the first two suggestions: can we think of examples in which conscience errs, or a person’s gut feelings lead her astray? We might also reasonably wonder about the source of gut feelings or dictates of conscience. Why think that these give us glimpses of ethical truth, rather than, for example, merely reflecting on assumptions and biases that we have accumulated through our upbringing and socialization?

Ethical Argument

There is a better approach to ethical hard cases than any of the false starts canvassed above: we can think about them. We can consider the reasons for and against certain ethical evaluations. We can construct and evaluate ethical arguments and see in which direction the weight of reasons tilt.

You might not be accustomed to thinking of ethics as a subject we can reason about. After all, many ethical disagreements seem anything but reasonable: they are often passionately emotional and intractable. But this might simply reflect the fact that we are not prone to reason about ethics well . Really, this is not so surprising, since reasoning well about any subject, and certainly a subject as complex and difficult as ethics, requires considerable experience.

A first step in learning how to reason well about ethical issues is to learn how ethical arguments work. One standard form of ethical argument seeks to derive particular ethical judgments— for example, the judgment that it would be wrong to kill Baby Theresa—from general ethical principles . A general ethical principle is a statement that says that a certain kind of action is ethical or unethical.

Here, for example, is a general ethical principle, which we may call the Benefits-Without-Harm Principle , or

BWHP : If an action will benefit people, without harming anyone, then it is ethically right.

BWHP identifies what philosophers call a sufficient condition for ethically right action. If an action benefits people without causing any harm, then that’s enough – it’s sufficient – to make that action ethically right, regardless of other features of the action or the circumstances in which the action is performed.

Suppose we find BWHP intuitively compelling. Does it shed any light on our question about whether killing Baby Theresa would be unethical? It might seem to, for one could appeal to BWHP in making the following ethical argument:

Argument 1 (A1)

1) If an action will benefit people, without harming anyone, then it is ethically right.
2) Killing Baby Theresa will benefit people, without harming anyone.
3) Therefore, killing Baby Theresa is ethically right.

For the moment, never mind whether this argument is convincing. Rather, try to appreciate how this method of arriving at ethical judgments differs significantly from the false starts we considered above.

Evaluating Ethical Arguments

In evaluating a simple ethical argument like A1, there are two basic questions we can ask:

1) Is the general principle to which the argument appeals (in this case, BWHP) a plausible one?
2) Is the principle correctly applied to the case under consideration?

As for the first question, one common way to assess the plausibility of a general ethical principle is by using what philosophers call the method of counterexample . This involves searching for cases (real or imagined) in which the principle gives the intuitively wrong result. Let’s illustrate this method by devising a possible counterexample to our sample principle, BWHP:

Benefactor . I am a very wealthy man in a small city with two hospitals. One hospital (Sunnyvale) serves the very rich and is decked out with all the latest and greatest medical equipment and is staffed by the most talented doctors and nurses. The other hospital (City General) serves the rest of the city (a majority of the population) and is badly under-equipped, under-staffed, and desperately in need of upgrades and repairs. Despite being aware of the dramatic inequality in the relative state of these two hospitals, I donate several million dollars to Sunnyvale and give nothing to City General. My reason is that I have been a patient at Sunnyvale several times in the past and am grateful for the treatment and care I received there.

Have I acted ethically right? Was giving several million dollars to Sunnyvale the right thing to do ? BWHP suggests that it was. After all:

Argument 2 (A2)

2) Donating the money to Sunnyvale benefits people without harming anyone.
3) Therefore, donating the money to Sunnyvale is ethically right.

But suppose we disagree with the claim that donating the money to Sunnyvale is the ethically right thing to do. What I should have done, we might argue, is donate the money to the hospital that needed it most—City General—where it could have done significantly more good. In our estimation then, BWHP yields the incorrect verdict in the case of Benefactor , and that’s a reason to doubt its validity.

Of course, counterexamples in ethics are never conclusive , since one always has the option to ‘bite the bullet’ and take on-board the counterintuitive ethical judgment. For example, a proponent of BWHP could give up the judgment that the money should have been donated to City General (and thereby state that giving it to Sunnyvale was the right thing) instead of giving up on BWHP. In ethics, counterexamples give us a choice: we can modify our principles to fit our ethical judgments, or we can modify our ethical judgments to fit our principles. Unfortunately, there is no algorithm for deciding when to do which. The best we can do is try to use good judgment and be on guard against various forms of bias.

In any case, let’s suppose that BWHP passes our tests. Let’s suppose we’ve considered a wide range of cases in which an action benefits people without harming anyone, and without exception we are disposed to judge these actions ethically right. When evaluating arguments like A1, there is still work to be done even if we find acceptable the general ethical principle to which the argument appeals. We need to ask whether the principle actually applies to the case under consideration. In evaluating A1, for example, we have to ask whether it is true that killing Baby Theresa would benefit people without harming anyone. We may disagree about whether an individual like Baby Theresa is harmed by being killed. In evaluating A2, we might disagree about whether there can be circumstances in which not bestowing a gift constitutes a harm, and, if so, whether these circumstances obtain in Benefactor . Complex conceptual and empirical issues like these arise all the time when thinking about right and wrong and form a large part of the workload in philosophical ethics.

Other Important Argument Forms

Thus far we’ve looked only at ethical arguments in which a particular action is said to conform to a general ethical principle. These arguments have the following form or pattern :

General Principle: Actions of type X are ethically right (or ethically wrong).
Particular judgment: This action, a , is an X.
Conclusion: Thus, a is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

As you begin to read more widely in philosophical ethics you will notice that there are many different argument-forms that philosophers commonly employ. Learning these patterns will improve your comprehension of arguments in ethics and your ability to offer compelling support for your own ethical views. Here we will cover two more forms: arguments from analogy and arguments from inference to the best explanation .

Arguments from Analogy

X is ethically right (or ethically wrong).
Y is just like X in all ethically relevant respects.
Thus, Y is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

Arguments from analogy are very common and can be very powerful. They derive their persuasive force from a basic principle of rational consistency stating that we should treat like cases alike .

A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in the philosopher Peter Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In that essay Singer aims to show that people in an affluent society like ours have an ethical obligation to contribute money to charitable organizations working to help the global poor. In supporting this claim, Singer asks us to imagine that we are passing by a shallow pond in which a small child is drowning. Supposing we could save the child at little cost to ourselves, Singer thinks that

Nearly everyone would acknowledge that they have in these circumstances an ethical obligation to help the drowning child.

He then argues:

There are no ethically relevant differences between the situation of the drowning child and the situation of the global poor.

And so, Singer concludes:

We have an ethical obligation to help the global poor.

In evaluating any argument from analogy, Singer’s included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether it is true that there are no ethically relevant differences between the cases being compared. After all, if there are ethically relevant differences, these could justify reaching a different conclusion about the two cases (there is no principle stating we must treat unlike cases alike). And indeed this is the issue on which Singer and critics of his now classic essay have focused.

Arguments from Inference to the Best Explanation

The best explanation for why X is ethically right (or ethically wrong) is captured by a general principle P.
Thus, we should accept P.
But P implies that Y is ethically right (or ethically wrong).

Another common argument-form in ethics, arguments from inference to the best explanation trade on the fact that when we accept an ethical principle we commit ourselves to accepting its implications. A great illustration of this argument-form can be found in Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral.” In that essay Marquis argues as follows:

It is wrong to kill a normal, adult human being.
The best explanation for why it is wrong to kill a normal, adult human being is the Deprivation Principle: it is wrong to deprive an individual of a future-of-value.
Thus, we should accept the Deprivation Principle.
But the Deprivation Principle implies that abortion is wrong, since abortions deprive individuals (the fetuses) of a future-of-value.
Thus, abortion is wrong.

In evaluating arguments from inference to the best explanation, Marquis’ included, the most important (but not the only) question to ask is whether the proffered explanation for the initial ethical judgment really is best . Perhaps there is an alternative principle that explains the initial judgment just as well or better, and which doesn’t imply what the proffered principle implies. And indeed this is the issue on which Marquis and his critics have focused.

Critical Thinking

By critical thinking , we refer to thinking that is recursive in nature. Any time we encounter new information or new ideas, we double back and rethink our prior conclusions on the subject to see if any other conclusions are better suited. [5]

Critical thinking can be contrasted with Authoritarian thinking . This type of thinking seeks to preserve the original conclusion. Here, thinking and conclusions are policed, as to question the system is to threaten the system. And threats to the system demand a defensive response. Critical thinking is short-circuited in authoritarian systems so that the conclusions are conserved instead of being open for revision.

Authoritarian thinking short circuits the recursive nature of critical thinking by not allowing questioning of traditionally held views.

Humility and vulnerability are key to critical thinking. We might also frame critical thinking in terms of having an open vs. an arrogant mind. The Greek philosopher Plato used two terms that help us name poor thinking. In the dialog Alcibiades , Socrates accuses his friend of being both ignorant and foolish. [6] Agnoeo (ignorance) for Plato, is a simple lack of knowledge — something which can be fixed with ease. Amathia (foolishness) , on the other hand, is a lack of awareness of one’s ignorance. [7] The opposite of amathia is not knowledge itself, but of an awareness of one’s ignorance . Socrates, in The Apology , concludes his search for wisdom in realizing that he is ignorant. [8] And so humility and vulnerability are key parts of critical thinking.

Liberation, not Banking — On Attitude and Practice

Ethics is more than just fact-learning, or a “history of ideas”. It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information . One aim of this book is to aid you in engaging with a living discipline. Ethics is a live and evolving subject. When you study philosophy, you are entering a dialog with those that have gone before you and those beside you. Learning about what various philosophers think will enable you to become clearer about what you think and add to that evolving dialog.

Ethics, like much of life, is more developing an attitude vs. accumulating facts. Paulo Freire develops the idea of the “Banking Model of Education” where facts, concepts, et cetera are deposited in the student by a learned master. [9] Such a view considers education to be static and a mere tool in the accumulation of wealth. You may recall politicians on both sides talk about education primarily in terms of job-training. While this is a useful benefit of education, the primary goal of education is to transform an “empty mind into an open one.” [10]

Notice the shift from banking to liberation in the quote. The term “empty mind” implies the purpose of education is to fill the mind with facts, terms, procedures, and directions. But we are not robots whose function is to merely recall information and process orders! We are something else entirely. Just what will be explored throughout this course. An open mind is a liberated mind. The open mind searches for what is good and what is true for their own sakes, not because it will increase one’s bottom line.

Freire contrasts the Banking Model of Education with what can be called a “Liberation Model of Education.” This approach to education places an emphasis upon the humanization of the self and the Other. The goal for the student and the teacher to partner together to solve the problems that face their communities. Sometimes this will involve unmasking the machines that govern our lives but remain hidden from public view. Other times it will involve imagining a more just society or efficient contraption. It might even involve naming and reckoning with current systems of oppression as well as coming to terms with how injustices of the past echo forward. It always resists demonizing the Other and refuses to turn the tables, allowing the oppressed to become the vengeful oppressors, as is the temptation.

The Liberation Educational model is able to simultaneously realize that in some ways we have been the beneficiaries of unjust social contracts, even though we have not been signatories to them. A Banking Model of Education is unable to evaluate the systems in which it is embedded because within it, all knowledge is stable and depends upon the legitimacy of the system for its stability. In contrast, in the Liberation Model of Education, we can question the systems themselves, demanding better and more just systems. We will talk about the connection between power, justice, and knowledge elsewhere in the course.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 1

In your educational history, have you encountered something like the banking or liberation model?
If you have experienced both, which did you find more humanizing?
What problems face your community? How might you partner others to work on solving those problems?
In what ways might you be the beneficiaries of an unjust social contracts even though you are not signatories of the contract?
What sort of attitude is required in regurgitating facts vs. doing ethics?

Distinctions

As we embark on our study of ethics, there are some concepts we need to carefully keep separate. It will be easy to fall victim to these flaws in reasoning. The authors have been guilty of these things from time to time! Before we get to these distinctions, let us talk about one distinction we do not make. Some people distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”. We do not. For us, nothing hangs on the difference between them. In this book you will see us switching between the terms, so do not get hung up on this distinction.

Is vs. Ought – Hume’s Guillotine

David Hume famously pointed out that we cannot move from an is to an ought . [11] He notes that many systems of ethics do, but that he can find no reason that justifies such a transcendence of categories. While this separation of is and ought by Hume is used to argue in part for his skepticism of prescriptive ethical theories we can use the distinction more broadly to note that just because someone is doing something is not evidence that they ought to be doing something. We can illustrate the concept with the following diagram.

Venn diagram showing the relationship between all that is happening and all that should be happening. One Circle (that which is) has an A and a B within it; Another Circle (that which ought to be) also includes the B, but also a C. D is outside of both circles.

Let’s examine these regions:

Region A – What people are doing, but should not be doing (These are the things we need to stop doing.)
Region B –Those actions people should be doing and are doing. (This is the sweet spot.)
Region C – Those hypothetical actions we should be doing, but are not doing. (Where we need to move.)
Region D – Those hypothetical actions we are not doing and should not be doing. (Stay away!)

Consider some examples that concern what people are doing (IS) and what they should be doing (OUGHT). Imagine the headline: “Scientists discover a gene explaining why we want to punch people wearing red trousers”. The article includes lots of science showing the genes and the statistical proof. Yet, none of this will tells us whether acting violently towards people wearing red trousers is morally acceptable. The explanation of why people feel and act in certain ways leaves it open as to how people morally ought to act.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 2

1. What actions would you place within regions A, B, C, and D?

2. Discuss why you all placed those actions within their corresponding reasons.

3. What does your answer to #2 say about your ethical viewpoint?

Consider a more serious example, relating to the ethics of eating meat. Supporters of meat-eating often point to our incisor teeth. This shows that it is natural for us to eat meat, a fact used as a reason for thinking that it is morally acceptable to do so. But this is a bad argument. Just because we have incisors does not tell us how we morally ought to behave. It might explain why we find it easy to eat meat, and it might even explain why we like eating meat. But this is not relevant to the moral question. Don’t you believe us? Imagine that dentists discover that our teeth are “designed” to eat other humans alive. What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.

Legal vs. Moral

It is easy for people to conflate that which moral with that which is legal . But, in fact, these are two very different categories, much like is vs ought. We can represent this with the following diagram.

The relation between the sets of actions that are legal (within a given jurisdiction) and the actions that are moral.

In the figure above, the categories of actions that are legal overlap with the collection of actions that are moral, but they are not the same set of things. Once again, we have used the letters A, B, C, and D to denote positions in the diagram. Let us look at some possible examples for each of these locations:

Region A – Legal but not Moral – Jim Crow Laws;
Region B – Legal and Moral- Refraining from Killing the Innocent;
Region C – Moral but not Legal – Breaking Jim Crow Laws; and
Region D – Not moral and not Legal – Killing the Innocent.

Using your knowledge of history or your googling devices, look up instances of immoral behaviors that have been legal in their local jurisdictions.

And so, we can see that we need to be careful when talking about issues of legality and morality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. In fact, most of the worst atrocities we humans have inflicted upon ourselves have been legal within their jurisdictions. Similarly, we can identify instances of illegal behaviors which are, in fact, moral.

The Issue of Disagreement

Finally, we want to draw your attention to a common bad argument as we want you to be aware of the mistake it leads to. Imagine that a group of friends are arguing about which country has won the most Olympic gold medals. Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general ignorance and disagreement; but does this mean that there is not an answer to the question of “which country has won the most Olympic gold medals?” No! We cannot move from the fact that people disagree to the conclusion that there is no answer.

Now consider a parallel argument that we hear far too often. Imagine that you and your friends are discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable. Some say yes, the others say no. Each of you cite how different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact — that there is disagreement — mean that there is no answer to the question of whether euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, the answer is no. That answer did not follow in the Olympic case, and it does not follow in the moral one either.

So just because different cultures have different moral views, this does not show, by itself, that there is no moral truth and no answer to the question. If you are interested in the idea that there is a lack of moral truth in ethics, then Moral Error Theorists defend exactly this position in the chapter on Metaethics.

In this introduction, we have sketched out some basic ideas necessary to start the study of Ethics. We have examined the basics of critical thinking and discussed 3 methods of talking about ethics: Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics, and Metaethics. We also looked at the three major positions on the nature of Ethics itself: Nonrealism, Relativism, and Realism. We have signposted some errors to avoid when it comes to thinking about ethics, and some strategies to consider instead. It may be worth occasionally revisiting the ideas discussed here during your studies, to test your own lines of argument and evaluate how “thinking well” is progressing for you. This would not be a weakness! The authors, and any honest philosopher, can reassure you — philosophy is hard, but it is worth it. We hope you find this textbook useful and rewarding in helping you on your own journey through Ethics.

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 3

What did you think Ethics and Philosophy were before you came into class? How about now?
What are the most pressing ethical problems facing you and your community?
Give examples of the is/ought and legal/moral distinctions. When have you or others conflated the them in the past?
Given what limited exposure you have had to the concepts, do you agree with the Nonrealist, Relativist, or Realist positions? Explain your reasoning and use an example to showcase your thinking.

Check Your Understanding

Select the best answer for each item.

Citation & Use

This chapter was sourced from Phronesis: An Open Introduction to Ethical Theory with Readings , by Henry Imler, which holds a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Mark Schroeder, “Value Theory,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2016 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/value-theory/. ↵
Geoff Sayre-McCord, “Metaethics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2014 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2014), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/metaethics/. ↵
This section was drawn from David Svolba's chapter on the same topic in Introduction to Ethics from NGE Press. His work is licensed under the Creative Commons open culture licence (CC-BY). ↵
Drawn from the actual case of Theresa Ann Campo Pearson. For an overview of the ethical issues involved, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5606434/. ↵
This discussion of critical thinking is drawn from Professor Barrett’s critical thinking model. For more, see Mike Barrett, “Critical Thinking,” in Reading, Thinking, Writing (LOGOS Project at MACC, 2017). ↵
Plato, “Alcibiades,” in Plato in 12 Volumes , trans. Harold North Flower, vol. 1 (London: Harvard University Press, 1966), sec. 118b, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg013.perseus-eng1:118b. ↵
Euripides, in Bacchae , invokes the idea of “willful blindness” with this term. See Robert Scott and H.G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). and Euripides and T.A. Buckley, “Bacchae,” in The Tragedies of Euripides (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850), l. 490, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0006.tlg017.perseus-eng1:476-518. ↵
Plato, “The Apology,” in Plato in 12 Volumes , trans. Harold North Flower, vol. 1 (London: Harvard University Press, 1966), secs. 20e–23c, http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg002.perseus-eng1:20e. ↵
Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition , 4 edition (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018), chap. 2. ↵
Quote by Malcom Forbes as recorded in: Richard Lederer, A Tribute to Teachers: Wit and Wisdom, Information and Inspiration about Those Who Change Our Lives (Marion Street Press, 2011), chap. 9. ↵
David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning Into Moral Subjects; and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Longmans, Green and Company, 1874), 245–46. ↵

What is Ethics? Copyright © 2024 by Andrew Fisher; David Svolba; Henry Imler; and Mark Dimmock is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Analyzing the basics of ethical thinking for leaders and organizations in society

This chapter will introduce the basic constructs of moral thinking. We will begin by defining the terms morality and ethics. After creating a working knowledge of the terminology, we will look at the roots of moral decision-making in our society by tracing the factors contributing to the Western societal framework. We will examine the many characteristics, including inherent tensions, that determine individual morality and societal ethics while focusing on the inherent legacy and discussion in that interaction. At the end of this section, different conceptions of the more profound components of moral theory and its interaction in society will be introduced, with constructive and practical outcomes that will help us to determine how best to approach ethical outcomes. This will include suggestions on becoming more aware of moral decision-making and how to avoid potential problems organizations or leaders might face as they consider problems that we must address personally, professionally, and in a societal and/or global sense.

Key Definitions

What is Morality?

The constructs of human conduct and/or values.

What is Ethics?

The study of the constructs that determine what is good and evil in direct connection with moral principles and values

What is Moral Reasoning?

The factors, arguments, and thinking patterns that determine the constructs of human conduct and/or values

Let’s begin with basic definitions of the study of moral philosophy and “good” decision-making. Morality is the term used to describe the constructs of human conduct and/or values. At its base, morality is formulated on an understanding of preferred behavior, in both an individual and societal sense, depending on the context. It is often in the interaction of personal and societal factors that thinkers have contemplated the depth and uniqueness of this study. Though many theorists differ in their interpretation of how morality is derived personally and collectively, experts generally agree that morality is a combination of reason and “sense” that we use or fall back on to determine right from wrong or our expectations of ourselves and others. Using the writings of Plato in commentary on Socrates, the definition focuses on morality as the determination of “how we ought to live.” This understanding of morality coincides with our beliefs about the future and how we conceive of how the world, the people, and the factors that determine that reality should come to be and the result we desire.

Ethics is the formal study of the personal and collective definitions of morality. Ethics focuses on how we, individually or collectively, conceive or determine morality. It represents the constant reevaluation and thinking behind the decisions that have led us to these conclusions.

“Ethics” is derived from the Greek term “ethos.” This term was most closely connected to the Greek concept of “proper character or manners.” The definition of ethics, whether used as a discipline or conceptually, is focused on pursuing objective truth to determine better outcomes daily for everyone, regardless of the factors or the results. Inherent in the study of ethics is a crucial understanding of the concept of objectivity.

Moral reasoning is the series of factors, arguments, and thinking patterns that humans use or engage in to determine what the basic values or constructs of proper moral judgments should be. Moral reasoning focuses on why and/or how we achieve the result of a proper way of living life. Though this is complicated, we all engage in this reasoning daily and throughout our lives, whether we consciously know it or not.

Two questions are at the core of this evaluation:

What is the best course of thought and action required to improve our awareness of this reasoning?
How do we determine the best outcome personally and as we interact and build community with others?

These terms are crucial to consider as we work towards the conceptual goal of truth. It includes how to read individuals more carefully and diligently and how we know ourselves. By paying more close attention to these constructs and studying them in greater depth, a good thinker can understand the factors that determine better decisions and, of course, avoid the prospect of decisions that could be very costly.

Crucial Moral Concepts

What is Virtue?

The concept of moral excellence or proper moral conduct

What are Values?

Characteristics of human thought and action that are intrinsically preferred or held in high esteem

Building on these definitions, we turn our attention to two concepts that are crucial to ethical study. Virtue is defined as the concept of moral excellence or proper moral conduct. This term is also applied to a field of ethical study called “virtue ethics.” “Virtue” philosophical thinkers believe there is a core of attributes central to the human condition that we can determine or “call upon” as preferred attributes of human behavior. These theories are most widely studied in the framework of Ancient Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who is perhaps the most famous. We will look at their views in the future. Many of these thinkers believe that ethical thinking becomes self-evident as individuals learn more about themselves and their world.

From that wisdom development, concepts of preferred behavior emerge. A good example is courage. Using reason, it becomes clear that being courageous is always more desirable than being uncourageous. Though people can be “courageous” or “uncourageous,” conceptually, courageous behavior is often believed to be more virtuous or an element of proper moral conduct. In our study, we pay particular attention or think about what determines a better or wiser thinker and what it requires of us. In Damon Horowitz’s 3-minute talk on teaching philosophy in prison, listen to his assessment of the importance and power of philosophical training and thought as it relates to determining the practical nature of the definition of virtue. What essential components of this conversation should we consider as we contemplate what it means to pursue ethical thinking? Those components of wisdom or attributes observed in human experience often coincide with the concepts that thinkers of the ages have determined are central to the “virtue” ethical excellence elements.

The other term essential to the discussion of morality and decision-making is the definition of values. The baseline definition of the term “values” pertains to human thought and action characteristics that are intrinsically preferred or held in high esteem. For our purposes, consider the term “values” or “value” as the individual characteristics, like courage, that make up the concept of virtuous or proper moral conduct. These two terms remind us that ideals or concepts may be present in our daily decision-making. The key is to identify them, ensure those ideals are central to objective truth and not just what we want, and consciously allow them to guide us in all aspects of our lives.

Basic Constructs of Ethical Study

Descriptive Ethics + Analytical Ethics = Normative Ethics

The determination of values and/or virtues can be seen in the struggle of leaders and organizations over time. In the Twentieth Century and the Twenty-First Century, unethical decisions have dominated the world, resulting in unethical outcomes. In the wake of such damaging outcomes, people are more astutely focusing on ethics and ethical practice. In doing so, they consider greater thoughtful procedures as they scope through risk management, organizational function and productivity, market positioning, and civic responsibility. What has emerged in greater clarity is the understanding that profits and ethical decision-making, at all levels, can be integrated partners if consistent and committed to long-term success is kept at the forefront of individual consciousness.

At the beginning of the study of ethical options, we need to define a framework to understand how to study ethics. In doing this, it becomes clear that ethics is complicated and not merely a formulation of what is only “wrong” or “right” but a concentrated and in-depth study of the various segments of human thought and behavior. I term this complexity the equation of ethical study. There are three components:

Descriptive ethics is the branch of ethical study that considers ethical analysis in the context of a neutral representation of the perceptions or facts of any ethical situation. It involves a lengthy and careful attempt to identify the ethical issues and values inherent in the evaluation process.
Analytical ethics centers on the argument and logic in the ethical opinions and assessments used to determine the ethical issues, values, or outcomes. This approach builds on descriptive ethics by considering the construct of ethical determination in greater depth. Analytical ethics considers the ethical outcome based upon other decisions, especially those decisions that are disconnected from others and the impact such decisions or outcomes might have in that consideration.
Normative ethics approaches the study of ethics with the belief, according to Kitson and Campbell in Case Studies in Business Ethics (2001), of seeking “to develop and defend judgments of right and wrong, good and bad, and virtue and vice, to arrive at an understanding of truth.” This final evaluation tool process focuses on determining the best possible outcome after solid and productive consideration of descriptive and analytical components. Normative is usually the stage of the ethical evaluation process that most people are familiar with, as it often leads to a decision or determination of what is “right” or “wrong” for an individual, group, organization, or society.

As May describes in Case Studies in Organizational Communication , these three layers make up the many different conceptualizations inherent in ethical analysis. All are equally important, but we must consider the ethical layers when considering descriptive and analytical ethical standing to make the best possible decision.

Prominent Ethical Tensions

Foundational vs. Situational Tensions

Individual vs. Community Tensions

Beyond these layers of ethical study, good critical thinkers must be aware of inevitable tensions between individuals crucial to ethical study evaluation. Such tensions exist in our world and are at the root of ethical dilemmas.

The first tension focuses on the interaction between foundational and situational arguments.

Foundational ethical arguments are built upon the idea that proper ethical formulation is based upon “universal” constructs of ethical thinking or objective conceptualization. From this standpoint, ethical evaluation is determined by an objective assessment that the individual or organization using this approach deems accurate, regardless of context or situation.
Situational ethical arguments are formulated on the belief that ethical thinking is a product of consistent change and subjective conceptualizations based upon unique circumstances or each instance in which an ethical evaluation must occur. This presents tension as each perspective can often be at the root of ethical differences and misunderstandings.

The other tension highlights the moral stances of ideologies linked to individualism and collectivism.

I ndividualistic ideology argues that proper ethical evaluation and determination are inherently formulated on the individual, entity, and responsibility.
The collective ethical perspective argues the opposite.

Ethical decision-making is best constructed through understanding the soundest course of thought and evaluation through group affiliation and agreement. Thinkers must consider the interplay of the rights and responsibilities of individuals with the rights and responsibilities of communities found in any society or organization (of people). A better understanding of the framework of ethical interaction allows us to contemplate productive outcomes more deeply for some of our most difficult moral problems. Awareness of these tensions is a start to becoming more productive in arriving at more ethical outcomes and defraying possible misunderstandings around the thoughts and behavior of those involved.

Moral Reasoning and Determination are not only… A matter of opinion or personal taste.

This essential question is central to the discussion of moral decision-making: isn’t morality simply a matter of opinion or personal taste? This question represents a standard assumption on the part of many. Other people view morality, ethical thinking, moral reasoning, virtue, and value or values, as simply relativistic or subjective. “ Relativistic ” refers to the belief that our understanding of truth (or what we believe in) is based on our evaluation or perspective. It can be argued that truth comes from a subjective conception, and this viewpoint carries great merit as we understand perception, thinking, and uniqueness. It is also true that moral reasoning or morality must probe more deeply than simply a belief or opinion we possess. Good thinking requires that we investigate, process and evaluate as many components of possible ethical dilemmas and not only the use of our background, quick assessments, or sole emotional reactions to determine better practices or outcomes.

Relativistic statements of individuals must go further than a simple assertion that they might have on a subject; instead, as the philosopher Dr. James Rachels explains in The Elements of Moral Philosophy , we must employ moral reasoning and virtuous decision-making solidly and constructively, building on the reasoning that is supported by the soundness of thought and consistency of action. This Starburst candy advertisement demonstrates how important it is to determine when an opinion or personal taste should lead us to evaluate the Truth and how we might begin to use reason to help us transcend evaluations that might be problematic or untrue.

Basic Ethical Constructs of the Western World

Though there are many codes of moral conduct and varying traditions of ethical perspective we could study, I have limited the scope of this course to a series of very strong contributors to our Western world to illustrate how ethical theory and conception have come to define our reality. These factors have become prominent in some ethical determinations in the Western World and the world at large. As we consider the climate of increasing globalized networks built upon some of these notions, it is increasingly essential to constructively understand and evaluate the roots of such basic conceptions of morality.

The long conversational history becomes apparent in tracing the background of morality and ethical conduct. We can find those essential modern conceptions linked to the world of the ancient world of the Greeks and Romans. Our presumptions of good business, proper conduct, and even the truth of reality have been shaped by the writings and beliefs of individuals predating the fourth century BC. Central to the Greco-Roman world was the philosophical viewpoint that the meaning of life was somehow connected to this idea of creating a “better life” or moving towards a greater sense of “progress.”

This idea is still present in almost every aspect of our world and can be fundamentally seen in Western culture. This concept of “ betterment ” or “good” living has impacted our decision-making, creating a society that focuses on growth and the belief that there are better ways to approach various subjects and our lives.

One key component of this Greek belief of “betterment” can be traced to their solid ethical notion of the citizenry and civic responsibility. Citizens have rights given to them by circumstance or situation, but with rights come responsibilities required of those with privilege. The Romans took this concept further, believing that the true notion of justice was steeped in ethical importance. They attempted to set up courts and impartial authority figures connected with the Roman authorities who were tasked with helping those in conflict resolve their issues through productive and just outcomes. The idea was that society only operates ethically when people are treated fairly and problems are solved to diminish conflict.

The second component is the influence of Christian values and virtues on the development of accepted social norms of thought and behavior in the Western world. Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, the Western world has been developed using the beliefs Christian principles passed down since the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church.

During this time, many social norms espoused by the Christian establishment became the backbone of European society. They laid the foundation for individual and organizational behavior through law or cultural expectations. Many of those expectations often associated with Hebraic belief expectations, such as the Ten Commandments, were combined with the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament. Those expectations became encapsulated in Christian creeds and lists of behavioral expectations, such as The Seven Deadly Sins , decided by Christian leaders through council decisions. These decisions were often instituted as laws that kingdoms adopted. Many concepts of societal values, such as true justice and characteristics of personal values, were taught, reinforced, and passed down from generation to generation, both societally and individually. In addition, these values or moral expectations were also taught and reinforced in direct conjunction with the Church’s practices.

Beyond the first earlier Western influences we have discussed, there have also been economic ideologies that have come to shape moral thinking and evaluation. Milton Friedman, one of the most prominent economists of the twentieth century, argued, in a famous 1970 essay termed Friedman’s Thesis , as well as his early text Capitalism and Freedom , “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” arguing that the role of a business should be to maximize profits and not to be concerned with elements of moral responsibility or participate in determining moral “rights” and “wrongs’ within society. According to his evaluation, institutions, especially for-profit organizations, should only concern themselves with economic decisions that would increase the profitability of shareholders. In this way, morality and market interaction would dictate proper moral decision-making.

Organizations’ freedom to pursue their best interest, namely profit, should determine organizational attitude and behavior as long as they obey the law. This belief functioned under the assumption that moral assessments should be reserved for the citizens who would make those decisions by purchasing the products or services presented and through the regulations created by legislators who represented those citizens. This approach profoundly influenced how Western society determined the best moral course of action, arguing that the market would be the best assessor of moral attitude and behavior.

Another layer of this debate centers itself on the tension between philanthropy and charity. Philanthropy, the offering of financial or resource help to an individual, organization, or society in need with some benefit for the giving organization or individual, has often been interpreted by many as a productive way to invest in a beneficial, moral manner to address critical ethical problems. It has been argued as the best option for addressing moral and social needs. In doing so, though, the belief is that what is beneficial for those who need the help should be linked to the benefit of the participating organization. Charity, in contrast, is centered on the idea that benefits of any kind should be offered without the mutual requirement of exchange. The debate over what is proper and productive “help” and the morality of how to best offer it as we consider economic results have been at the crux of moral evaluation in the Western world and linked to the debate around Friedman’s Thesis. Some of that debate has been influenced by moral presumptions connected with the value of work and individual responsibility. This also includes the assumption that profitability is most important and should influence how we evaluate the most moral course of action.

The moral complexity of individual and society in Western society…Pluralism, dualism, and monism

As alluded to in the last section, the complexity of the interaction of individual and societal beliefs is critical in understanding the context of Western ethical thinking. Western society has consistently attempted, through the institution of such documents as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights 1688, and The Constitution of the United States, to define the relationship more clearly between what is individually acceptable behavior and what is collectively accepted as permissible

Rousseau, the famous French-Swiss philosopher of the eighteenth century, referred to this as the concept of a social contract. At the heart of this interaction is a societal moral value called justice. Perhaps one of the most controversial legal thinkers of the twentieth century, John Rawls, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at Harvard, asserts that we must know the role of “institutions” or groups of people in moral decision-making. At the root of the interaction of personal, institutional (which is best defined as any group of individuals), and society at large is the philosophical conception of whether Truth, defined objectively, can be found in a dualistic thinking framework or a monistic thinking conceptualization.

Dualism is the belief that two concepts, ideals, or factors determine truth by their interplay or lack therein, while monism refers to the belief that truth reflects one concept, ideal, or factor. For a thinker, it is imperative to determine whether problem-solving considers a more dualistic, or perhaps even pluralistic, or multiple-factor approach or a more monistic framework. As we struggle with proper judgments, one will inevitably conclude that proper conduct and decision-making, as well as good critical thinking, must incorporate a solid and reliable set of rules of conduct or expectations that is inclusive of as many approaches or perspectives as possible while considering the need to determine ethical goals or ideals to progress towards.

Dilemmas at the Heart of Ethical Thinking…

Justice vs. mercy
Truth vs. Loyalty
Individual vs. community
Short-term goals vs. long-term goals

To further our understanding of ethical thinking, it is useful to dissect moral problems within the context of “value pairings.” To highlight some of the more critical Western societal values, Rushworth Kidder breaks ethical issues into four major categories that should help us assess moral decision-making. In How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living (1995), he argues that all complex ethical dilemmas have, at their core, many of the following series of troubling pairings that make it challenging to determine the best moral outcome.

Justice versus mercy forces us to consider how we should uphold proper expectations for attitudes and behaviors, emphasizing that everyone should receive what they deserve within society. This includes the belief that taking responsibility for oneself is important while balancing the belief that it is valuable to consider when to offer leniency to those who might not deserve it or someone who hasn’t taken responsibility.

Truth (objective) versus loyalty presents the dilemma of determining when we or society should adhere to the truth regardless of loyalty and when loyalty to ourselves, others, or institutions might be the most moral course of action.

The construct of individual versus community tension compels us to consider the varied interests of the individual versus the needs and/or desires of a greater community. This moral dilemma can be present in many different facets of society.

Finally, Kidder iterates that the final dilemma we should consider is the clash between short-term and long-term goal-setting . There are often compelling cases for when we should choose short-term over long-term goals or vice versa, but knowing when to make the right decision in the right situation is often difficult to determine. Considering these four dilemmas can not be understated when we evaluate the importance of better critical thinking with the result of more ethical outcomes. Listen to Patrick Awuah’s discussion (17 minutes) as he uses his experience to emphasize the importance of being a “thinking, moral” leader and how one should look for opportunities to encourage those traits in others. Making ethical decisions is not easy, but it is necessary.

The Origin of Ethical Determination

Differing perspectives on moral determination have been considered in Western society for centuries. As a result, many different viewpoints have emerged over time. It is essential to contemplate the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers to analyze what is truly at the core of proper moral reasoning and understand what many people today might conclude.

David Hume , a Scottish philosopher of the Eighteenth Century, espoused the viewpoint that people determine what is “right” or “wrong” through experiences filtered by their senses. Hume’s famous statement that humans are nothing more than “a bundle of perceptions” claims that the core of who we are as individuals is directly tied to our perceptions or how we interpret the world. Though perception, as a process, may be considered universal in the sense that we, as humans, all participate in it or employ the phenomena, he is quick to point out that each one of us is diverse in those experiences.

Karl Marx, the famous Mid-Nineteenth Century philosopher, is known primarily for his work The Communist Manifesto. Marx wrote that the root of ethical thinking is humans’ economic constraints. The struggle over material goods between those who have and those who have not and how that relationship is worked in society outlines and determines ethical thinking or morality.

The last and most controversial is the work of psychologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud . Freud believed that ethical thinking is directly tied to our subconscious and found that we find the real motivations for ethical decision-making in the interaction of the id, ego, and superego. Therefore, morality is based upon our “hidden desires” or “what we really want” when played out against other influences such as societal expectations and/or the interests of others; this reflects the central feature of who we are as individuals but also the weighs that interest against the interest of others.

By contemplating the potential motivating factors that determine ethical thinking in people, we become much more careful in thinking through matters pertaining to decision-making. In Western society, many thinkers have come to radically different perspectives on what determines ethical thought and action.

Questions at the Root of the Ethical Decision-Making Process

At the root of ethical decision-making are four initial questions that must be contemplated to find answers.

What does it mean to be good?
What makes a life a good life?
What characteristics make up a good human?
What duties do we have to each other and ourselves?

Critical thinkers may use the following suggestions when confronted with questions.

First, there are no easy answers; attaining satisfactory answers is ongoing. These questions must be revisited to gain insight and enhance growth over time.

Second, strong and solid reasons require significant thought and the ability to continually question notions that might even be held dear. Process and result must both be considered. Last, these questions require us to keep ourselves in check by considering the interest of others.

Tough Outcomes May Emerge

Several potential outcomes emerge when important ethical questions are asked. These questions can cause people to come to certain conclusions that may be unnerving. Additionally, the answers that people often struggle with produce actions and outcomes that present obstacles to moving along with better ethical thinking and problem-solving.

The first problem is the issue of blame . At the root of blame is the shared realization that change is needed. Change is often scary and threatening. As individuals think about ethical issues, they are often confronted by their conscience or reason, prompting them to feel troubled by their thoughts or behaviors. When integrated with the need to enact some form of change, discomfort can cause people to feel unmotivated or agitated. It is probably safe to say that most humans do not like change, and this factor alone can cause uncomfortable situations or outcomes, but when we add the topic of moral assessment, there is added pressure and stress. This video of a dog illustrates the humorous interaction between the dog “Denver” and his master. This is a microcosm (in a more humorous manner) of what people might experience.

The second potential problem centers on the issue of obligation or duty. Ethical issues naturally imply that the change required might dictate a strong sense of obligation that may cause people not to think and act unfairly. Think of a person who has a renewed view of an issue or problem and throws themselves completely into that new approach without realizing that that renewed perspective may not solve ethical issues. The complexities of obligation can create a crisis as people, in their new understanding, might be torn between loyalties to multiple viewpoints or viewpoints—thus causing even more potential dismay.

The third factor to consider is the issue of the emotional investment of those involved. Ethical issues often carry with them inherent strong viewpoints and feelings that can surface and may cause individuals to avoid an accurate understanding of the outcomes present. This emotional investment may lead to false admiration for those involved in the decision or leaders who enact what is perceived to be the better moral decision or process. This can lead to an inaccurate result or view of the situation.

Last might be the ethical dilemma of not knowing the result that an ethical decision might produce . How does one truly know that they are correct, or what we have come to think is the proper outcome will indeed yield that result? The prospect of this can be frightening for many people. The more we know how people react in circumstances linked to ethical tensions and outcomes, the better we identify these tendencies in ourselves and others and work to allay those fears. This is perhaps one of the most important factors to consider and why an ethics-based education is essential.

Awuah, P. (2007, June). How to educate leaders? Liberal arts. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/patrick_awuah_on_educating_leaders

Denver Official Guilty Dog Video. (2011, March 08). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=B8ISzf2pryI

Horowitz, D. (2011, March). Philosophy in prison. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/damon_horowitz_philosophy_in_prison

Kitson, A., & Campbell, R. (2001). Case studies in business ethics. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), Business ethics: Critical perspectives on business and management (Vol. IV, pp. 7–12). London: Routledge.

May, S. (2012). Case studies in organizational communication: Ethical perspectives and practices. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ronda, N. (2011, June 19). Starburst- Commercial [funny]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jodb9lkwnd8

Share This Book

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Building an Ethical Company

Isaac H. Smith
Maryam Kouchaki

Just as people can develop skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more or less ethical. Yet many organizations limit ethics training to the onboarding process. If they do address it thereafter, it may be only by establishing codes of conduct or whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific infractions, but they don’t necessarily help employees develop as ethical people.

Drawing on evidence from hundreds of research studies, the authors offer a framework for helping workers build moral character. Managers can provide experiential training in ethical dilemmas. They can foster psychological safety when minor lapses occur, conduct pre- and postmortems for initiatives with ethical components, and create a culture of service by encouraging volunteer work and mentoring in ethics.

Create an organization that helps employees behave more honorably.

Idea in Brief

The opportunity.

Just as people entering the workforce can develop job-related skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more ethical as well.

Why It’s Often Missed

Many organizations relegate ethics training to the onboarding process, perhaps also issuing codes of conduct and establishing whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific unethical acts but don’t necessarily help workers grow as moral people.

How to Capitalize on It

Managers can provide experiential training in ethical dilemmas, foster psychological safety when (minor) lapses occur, conduct pre- and postmortems for initiatives with ethical components, and create a culture of service by encouraging volunteer work and mentoring in ethics.

People don’t enter the workforce with a fixed moral character. Just as employees can nurture (or neglect) their skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more or less ethical. Yet rather than take a long-term view of employees’ moral development, many organizations treat ethics training as a onetime event, often limiting it to the onboarding process. If they do address ethics thereafter, it may be only by espousing codes of conduct or establishing whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific unethical actions, but they don’t necessarily help employees develop as moral people.

Isaac H. Smith is an associate professor of organizational behavior and human resources at BYU Marriott School of Business. His research explores the morality and ethics of organizations and the people in them.
Maryam Kouchaki is a professor of management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management. Her research explores ethics, morality, and the complexity and challenges of managing ethnic and gender diversity for organizations.

Partner Center

Moral character

Practices | utilize moral and ethical decision making.

Use a values-informed reflective process to assess possibilities, navigate dilemmas, and make the best possible choice to serve the needs of the individual, team, community and learning environment.

Educators make many decisions on a daily basis that can affect the lives of students, their parents and our colleagues. Some decisions may be small and seem insignificant, while others are true dilemmas. Even in urgent situations, it’s essential to consider the moral and ethical implications of our decisions and address conflicting values in a way that is inclusive and authentic.

Pause to consider the full range of moral and ethical implications of our decisions

Connect decisions back to the shared values articulated in our community, reflect on decisions afterwards and be aware of unintended consequences, principled innovation and utilize moral and ethical decision making.

When we talk about decisions as being “moral,” we refer to our own guiding values which define our beliefs about good and just behavior. When we talk about “ethics,” we talk about how we as a society believe that morals should be applied in different situations. Both of these are important in creating effective Principled Innovations.

Thinking about whether our practices are moral is important because it helps us to go well beyond whether or not something is simply required by law. Indeed, throughout human history, law has at times sided with injustice. And while codes of ethics are helpful, changing environments often outpace the development of ethical codes, and educators must be prepared to anticipate and resolve moral dilemmas that are not addressed within existing ethics rules. This is why individual educators and their learning communities need to start by taking time to understand what is important to each person in that community.

Building on the foundation of understanding a community’s values, Practice M2 calls for practical wisdom in decision-making that draws from a wide range of character assets. The framework emphasizes the need to engage empathy and inclusive perspective-taking in understanding how decisions will impact others. It emphasizes the importance of fairness — of determining what is equitable and just for all members of the community. It emphasizes engaging our critical thinking, reflection and truth-seeking to evaluate quality evidence and make sure we have the right information to make our decisions, and an honesty and humility to admit when we’ve been wrong. And it emphasizes the importance of seeking creative solutions by working inclusively across multiple perspectives. Finally, making decisions often demands courage and resilience, particularly when the solutions address problems our learning communities have yet to acknowledge.

Our personal lives present daily opportunities for making decisions that call on us to align our actions with our values. Some of those decisions—such as how to communicate with a family member who looks at the world through a different political lens—can be difficult to navigate. A reflective, mindful awareness of our own values can help us decide which values take priorities in moments like these, and discussing these dilemmas with others can help expand our toolkit of creative options for more effectively navigating these difficult situations.

As adults responsible for classrooms full of students, teachers have an outsized level of influence over the lives of other human beings. The life of a teacher is packed full of ethical and moral decision-making. Classroom decisions on topics such as assessment, classroom management, and parent interactions can have far-reaching consequences for the lives of the students they serve. Engaging the PI character assets can help provide the practical wisdom needed to make these daily decisions.

Like any organization, schools and school systems are inherently ethical communities. The policies they enact have implications for the learning of thousands of children and can positively or adversely affect the socioeconomic future of entire communities. As members of these organizations, individual educators have a responsibility to be active participants in the larger learning community—or to become leaders themselves—and to influence these organizations to implement morally responsible opportunities for all students to learn.

3. Resources

Select one of our featured resources or visit the PI toolkit library for more tools.

Navigating moral dilemmas

60 minutes

By: Principled Innovation ® (PI)

Ethics centre playlist, part 1: what’s a value or principle you live by?

1 minutes

By: Ethics Centre

Integrating ethics: “ethical judgment”

6 minutes

By: University of Texas at El Paso

Ethics and morality

5 minutes

By: Psychology Today

Access our collection of +200 learning materials

4. connect the dots.

How could this practice be enacted through the Moral assets?

A well-developed understanding of fairness underlies the equitable vision that inspires social innovation. Fairness makes us aware of outstanding societal challenges and helps us understand how equitably our innovations address those challenges.

Moral and ethical decision making is strengthened when built upon an honest exchange of individual beliefs and values. A foundation of trust and honesty leads communities into a greater confidence in the decisions that are made and a greater openness toward innovation.

A readiness to better understand our own moral and ethical shortsightedness prepares us to more accurately anticipate the potential ethical implications of our actions.

Ethical decision making requires empathetic insight into others’ experiences and both a well-reasoned and felt understanding of how social change may adversely affect others in the community.

IMAGES

The Thinker's Guide to Ethical Reasoning: Based on Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking And Ethics Essay
Introduction Video on Online course on Ethics and Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
3 Ways to Improve Your Critical Thinking

VIDEO

What Is Critical Thinking, and Why Is It Important?
A Warm Welcome and a Provocative Start #philosophy #havawater
Reflections on Self and Society (I m so cringe)
Wtf is meditation?! 🧘 #philosophy #havawater
Exploring the "meaningless" #philosophy #havawater
why explore questions that have no end-goal (like women🫠)

COMMENTS

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking
Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically. Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion ...
WHAT IS CRITICAL ETHICS AND WHY IT MATTERS
Dr. Isidoro Talavera. 2021, Academia Letters. Critical Ethics (as a unified account of normative and meta-ethics) uses critical thinking to get around the limitations of personal belief and indoctrination to get to what ought to be done and why to improve the human condition. For, if we teach only moral beliefs (whether as a set of absolutistic ...
How Is Critical Thinking Different From Ethical Thinking?
Ethical thinking and critical thinking are both important and it helps to understand how we need to use them together to make decisions. Critical thinking helps us narrow our choices. Ethical thinking includes values as a filter to guide us to a choice that is ethical. Using critical thinking, we may discover an opportunity to exploit a ...
Thinking Ethically
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals. The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.
PDF The Ethical Practice of Critical Thinking
You discover that critical thinking involves not only logic, but un-derstanding causal correlations, reasoning by analogy, or applying standards to assess available evidence in support of a position. Even creative problem-solving is part of critical thinking. Learn this, and you should be the very model of a critical thinker ready to set sail ...
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms ...
10.1: Ethics vs. Morality
Etc. On this conception, the ethical encompasses the moral and political because ethical questions are questions about the good life and what we ought to do, whereas moral questions are about what we ought to do to and with one another. It's important to note, though, that this isn't an authoritative way to draw the distinction.
PDF Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning
The Problem of Pseudo-Ethics—the Sociocentric Counterfeits of Ethical Reasoning. (Religious thinking {based on theology}, conventional thinking {based on social folkways and taboos}, political thinking {based on ideology and vested interest}, and legal thinking {based on political processes and social pressures} are commonly confused with ethical
PDF Critical Thinking: Ethical Reasoning and Fairminded Thinking, Part I
cal capacities; and integrate ethical understandings with critical thinking skills, abilities, and traits. There are many reasons why students lack ethical reasoning abilities. For example, most students (and indeed most people) confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law.
Critical Thinking and Ethics-Critical Thinking Secrets
The connection between critical thinking and ethics is a significant one, as both concepts play crucial roles in decision-making and problem-solving. Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information to reach well-founded conclusions, while ethics involves the principles and standards that guide our behavior.
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking is the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations. The goal of this process is to help us have good beliefs, where "good" means that our beliefs meet certain goals of thought, such as truth, usefulness, or rationality. Critical thinking is widely ...
Ethics Without Indoctrination
Ethics Without Indoctrination. Abstract. In this revised paper, originally published in Educational Leadership (1988), Richard Paul argues that ethics ought to be taught in school, but only in conjunction with critical thinking. Without critical thinking at the heart of ethical instruction, indoctrination rather than ethical insight results.
Full article: Critical Thinking Activities and the Enhancement of
This article explores how critical thinking activities and assignments can function to enhance students' ethical awareness and sense of civic responsibility. Employing Levinas's Other-centered theory of ethics, Burke's notion of 'the paradox of substance', and Murray's concept of 'a rhetoric of disruption', this article explores the ...
Critical Thinking, Creativity, Ethical Reasoning: A Unity of ...
5 8.5 Thinking Beyond the Opposites: Toward a Better and More Humane World. Critical, creative, and ethical thinking working together are intellectually more powerful than any one of these forms in isolation. This is especially obvious if one contemplates the opposites of any of the three combined with the other two.
Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those that enhance the well being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism. Developing one's ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency ...
Critical Thinking and Ethics
And arguing well is what you learn by studying critical thinking. With that in mind, I was inspired to start a series over at LogicCheck that applies different critical-thinking principles to specific cases in this year's Ethics Bowl national case set . The first looks at how the ability to peer through persuasive language (commonly referred ...
Session 3: Critical Thinking Expanded to Ethical Decision-Making Video
Let's talk about a few steps. So step one, I want you to be able to separate and understand that there are facts and there are assumptions. Getting beyond your opinion is really important when you're talking about critical thinking in the context of your career. Step 2 gather and consider evidence and evaluate from different ethical perspectives.
Developing critical thinking and ethical global engagement in ...
Self-awareness and metacognitive skills are necessary for ethical global engagement. Self-awareness and the ability to think about our own thinking are key to developing critical thinking and ethical reasoning in students. Specifically, the ability to recognise and separate one's personal biases or self-interests is important for making ...
3.1: Breaking down critical thinking into categories
Critical thinking is a set of skills designed to help the thinker analyze, assess and question a given situation or reading. Critical thinking skills push the thinker to reject simplistic conclusions based on human irrationality, false assumptions, prejudices, biases and anecdotal evidence. Critical thinking skills give thinkers confidence that ...
What is Ethics?
Ethics is more than just fact-learning, or a "history of ideas". It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information.
Chapter 2-Morality and Decision Making
Analyzing the basics of ethical thinking for leaders and organizations in society. This chapter will introduce the basic constructs of moral thinking. We will begin by defining the terms morality and ethics. After creating a working knowledge of the terminology, we will look at the roots of moral decision-making in our society by tracing the ...
Building an Ethical Company
Building an Ethical Company. Create an organization that helps employees behave more honorably. Summary. Just as people can develop skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more or ...
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
It makes you a well-rounded individual, one who has looked at all of their options and possible solutions before making a choice. According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills.
Utilize moral and ethical decision making
Principled Innovation and Utilize moral and ethical decision making. Our inclination to question whether the systems in our society function ethically, motivates us toward creating more just and equitable learning environments. Principled innovation emphasizes the need to engage empathy and inclusive perspective-taking in understanding how our ...

A Crash Course in Critical Thinking

WHAT IS CRITICAL ETHICS AND WHY IT MATTERS

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

How Is Critical Thinking Different From Ethical Thinking?

Share this:

Join the Conversation!

Thinking Ethically

Bibliography

Critical Thinking

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2. Examples and Non-Examples

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

12. Controversies

Support SEP

The Connection between Critical Thinking and Ethics: Unraveling the Link

The Concepts of Critical Thinking and Ethics

Defining Ethics

The Importance of Critical Thinking in Ethical Decision-Making

Recognizing Ethical Issues

Evaluating Ethical Choices

Implementing Ethical Solutions

Section 4: Developing Critical Thinking and Ethical Reasoning Skills

Education and Curricula

Exercises and Practice

Section 5: Challenges and Limitations

Emotional Influence

Cultural Differences

You may also like

Best Apps for Problem Solving: Top Picks for Effective Solutions

Critical Thinking job interview questions

Critical thinking and Decision making

Riddles for creative thinking

Critical Thinking, Creativity, Ethical Reasoning: A Unity of Opposites

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding authors

Editor information

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Translate this page from English...

Critical Thinking and Ethics

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Session 3: Critical Thinking Expanded to Ethical Decision-Making Video Transcript

3.1: Breaking down critical thinking into categories

WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

WHAT DO CRITICAL THINKERS DO?

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

HOW DO I USE CRITICAL THINKING?

What is Ethics?

Click to print this chapter: What Is Ethics?

Methods of Thinking about Ethical Problems [3]

Some False Starts

Consulting the law?

Conducting an opinion poll?

Going with ‘gut feelings,’ or the dictates of conscience?

Ethical Argument

Argument 1 (A1)

Evaluating Ethical Arguments

Argument 2 (A2)

Other Important Argument Forms

Arguments from Analogy

Arguments from Inference to the Best Explanation

Critical Thinking

Liberation, not Banking — On Attitude and Practice

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 1

Distinctions

Is vs. Ought – Hume’s Guillotine

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 2

Legal vs. Moral

The Issue of Disagreement

For Reflection and Discussion – Set 3

Check Your Understanding

Citation & Use

Share This Book

Analyzing the basics of ethical thinking for leaders and organizations in society