The Three Typical Patterns Of Reasoning In Moral Matters

According to Frankena (1973) Socrates argued that there were three typical patterns of reasoning in moral matters. The first belief was that no one should harm to another person. The principle was if an action was to the detriment of another human then it went counter to moral reasoning. If a person killed another person for whatever cause then it cannot be justified using moral reasoning. This belief has been used by those who oppose fighting a war, condemning a person to death for a crime, or by those choosing to object to abortions. Frankena (1973) uses Socrates example about escaping from jail to validate the point that the action would do harm to the state. Thus, it would hurt people. The second pattern of reasoning for moral matters