In The Thinker's Guide to Ethical Reasoning, Richard Paul and Linda Elder present the vital role of ethics in the creation and ultimate success of cooperative societies. Independent of religious or cultural norms, ethical concepts promote sustainable advancement and offer a framework by which all people can not only coexist but prosper.
How to Read a Paragraph introduces the importance of purposeful skilled reading and lays out methods by which to develop close reading skills using the tools of critical thinking. Developing these skills enables students to read for deep understanding, to properly analyze and assess what they read, and to reason within the logic of an author. As readers engage with the thinking of authors and uncover their assumptions and motivations, they glean the most useful information from their written work. This book pairs with How to Write a Paragraph to offer an in-depth introduction to effective reading and writing skills. Activities in the book help sharpen reading comprehension skills for an elevated level of self-understanding, fulfillment, and depth of vision. As part of the Thinker’s Guide Library, this book advances the mission of the Foundation for Critical Thinking to promote fairminded critical societies through cultivating essential intellectual abilities and virtues within every field of study across world.
In the last two columns in this critical thinking series we briefly introduced and discussed the concept of standards in connection with natural languages. We presented nine essential standards: clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, significance, and fairness. These nine standards are part of a much broader set of standards found in all natural languages. Natural, or ordinary, languages are those languages we speak every day and are to be distinguished from technical languages such as those developed in mathematics, formal logic, and other specialized fields. Throughout recorded history, scholars within disciplines and skilled thinkers in all parts of human life have applied universal standards to human reasoning, at differing levels and to varying degrees. The concept of criticality itself presupposes adherence to relevant standards (such as accuracy, relevance, logic, and so forth).In this column, we briefly analyze the concept of standards as an construct. Further, we explore the important realization that though humans routinely use standards to determine what to believe and how to act, these standards are not always in nature.Exploring the Concept of StandardsEvery term in the English language (and in all ordinary languages) has established uses that are found in well-researched dictionaries. Thus, to conceptualize standards, it is important to consider established uses of the terms intellectual and ''standards (as well as related terms)and integrate insights from this analysis to formulate a reasonable conception of standards.Beginning with the term standard or its synonym criterion, consider the following definitions:Standard applies to some measure, principle, model, etc. with which things of the same class are compared in order to determine their quantity, value, quality, etc. [standard of purity for drugs]. Criterion applies to a test or rule for measuring the excellence, fitness, or correctness of something [mere memory is no accurate criterion of intelligence]. (Wiley Publishing, 2007)Thus standards and criteria are rules or principles used to determine the quality of something and, accordingly, whether to accept or reject it. These criteria are used to judge or decide upon something, and can usually be used synonymously for this purpose.Standards Are Prevalent in Everyday LifeHumans routinely use judgment in determining what to accept and what to reject; this is impossible without standards or criteria. Consider the following examples, paying particular attention to the standards used to determine quality in each case:* To determine whether a loaf of bread is of acceptable quality, we might use the following standards, among others: the degree of rise of the loaf, inside texture, outside crust texture, thickness, lightness, and so forth. A pastry chef creating recipes would use not only global standards, such as these, for assessing the quality of bread but more precise and particular standards relevant to our taste and situation. These standards might include a specific degree of rise of the loaf, specific consistency of inner and outer texture, specific taste and weight of the loaf, and so forth. Once particular standards for a recipe have been determined, each loaf baked thereafter would be compared with the set criteria. The quality of each loaf would be judged based on these standards.* To determine whether a tennis player under a coach's direction was likely to compete well at a particular level of play, the coach might first look at the average skill level of top contenders and use that skill level to formulate a set of standards by which to judge the competitiveness of the trainee's skills. Standards, would be determined by considering back court performance, net court performance, fitness level, mental stamina under pressure, average first and second serve percentages, ratios of wins to errors, the player's track record against established players, and so on and comparing skills in these categories with the standards set by the top players. …
tion of intellectual traits. In this column we continue the discussion of these competency standards that are essential to teaching and learning because they go beyond the development of skills and abilities to the fostering of essential intellectual virtues or dispositions. I t is not enough for students to learn critical thinking abilities. They need to cultivate within their own minds intellectual traits. These traits transform one’s character. Through the development of intellectual traits, or virtues, students orient themselves in the world as fairminded thinkers who routinely think within alternative viewpoints, persevere through dif ficulties in issues, are open to new ways of looking at things, follow the best reasoning wherever it takes them, and change their minds when it makes sense. Students who discipline their minds (through developing intellectual virtues) routinely identify problems in their own reasoning to improve their thinking and live at a higher level of self-realization. When intellectual virtues are actively and explicitly taught across the academic institution, students develop as fairminded critical thinkers, ultimately leading to fairminded critical societies. Th e following virtues–fairmindedness, intellectual humility, intel lectual courage, intellectual empathy–are essential intellectual traits in an interconnected web that ultimately must be understood in relationship with one another (Paul & Elder, 2001). They are applicable to all education levels and potentially all domains of thought.
The development of ethical reasoning abilities is vitally important - both for living an ethical life and creating an ethical world. In columns over the last several years we have focused on the foundations of critical thinking. In this and the next few columns, we set out some of the foundations of ethical reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2006a). Our aim is to introduce some important intellectual tools and understandings for insightfully reasoning through ethical issues and problems.By teaching critical thinking without ethics one runs the risk of inadvertently fostering sophistic rather than fairminded critical thinking. In fact, students often commonly become skilled in critical thinking without developing the understandings requisite to living an ethical Ufe. These students develop intellectual skills which enable them to get what they want without being bothered with how their behavior might affect others.The human mind intrinsically seeks that which it perceives to be in its own interests (without necessarily concerning itself with the rights and needs of others). Developing ethical sensitivities requires cultivating the mind to go beyond innate selfishness to consideration of the rights and needs of others. One needs to understand ethical reasoning; cultivate ethical 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. Most do not see ethics as a domain unto itself, a set of concepts and principles to guide determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures. Most students do not recognize that ethical concepts and principles are universally defined, through such documents as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and that these concepts and principles are transcultural and transreligious.One need not appeal to a religious belief or cultural convention to recognize that slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder, assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation are all ethically wrong. Whenever students base ethical conclusions on religious or cultural standards, they exemplify a misunderstanding of ethics in a fundamental sense.It is essential that students learn to use shared ethical concepts and principles as guides in reasoning through common ethical issues. There is a wide array of important ethical concepts implicit in virtually every natural language. For instance, all spoken languages contain synonyms for desirable ethical traits such as being kind, openminded, impartial, truthful, honest, compassionate, considerate, and honorable. They also contain hundreds of negative ethical traits such as being selfish, greedy, egotistical, callous, deceitful, hypocritical, disingenuous, prejudiced, bigoted, spiteful, vindictive, cruel, brutal, and oppressive. The essential meanings of these terms are not dependent on either theology or social convention. Living an ethical life emerges from the fact that people are capable of either helping or harming others, of contributing to or damaging the quality of their lives.In addition to the ability to distinguish purely ethical terms from those that are theological or conventional, skilled ethical reasoning presupposes the same range of intellectual skills and traits required in other domains. One must be skilled in breaking reasoning down into its component parts.One must be proficient in assessing reasoning for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness. One must be intellectually humble, intellectually perseverant, and intellectually empathic (Paul & Elder, 2006b, 2009).The Function and Roots of EthicsThe proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those that enhance the well-being of others - which warrant praise - and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others - and thus warrant criticism. …
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.
The development of ethical reasoning abilities is vitally important - both for living an ethical life and creating an ethical world. In columns over the last several years we have focused on the foundations of critical thinking. In this and the next few columns, we set out some of the foundations of ethical reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2006a). Our aim is to introduce some important intellectual tools and understandings for insightfully reasoning through ethical issues and problems.By teaching critical thinking without ethics one runs the risk of inadvertently fostering sophistic rather than fairminded critical thinking. In fact, students often commonly become skilled in critical thinking without developing the understandings requisite to living an ethical Ufe. These students develop intellectual skills which enable them to get what they want without being bothered with how their behavior might affect others.The human mind intrinsically seeks that which it perceives to be in its own interests (without necessarily concerning itself with the rights and needs of others). Developing ethical sensitivities requires cultivating the mind to go beyond innate selfishness to consideration of the rights and needs of others. One needs to understand ethical reasoning; cultivate ethical 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. Most do not see ethics as a domain unto itself, a set of concepts and principles to guide determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures. Most students do not recognize that ethical concepts and principles are universally defined, through such documents as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and that these concepts and principles are transcultural and transreligious.One need not appeal to a religious belief or cultural convention to recognize that slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder, assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation are all ethically wrong. Whenever students base ethical conclusions on religious or cultural standards, they exemplify a misunderstanding of ethics in a fundamental sense.It is essential that students learn to use shared ethical concepts and principles as guides in reasoning through common ethical issues. There is a wide array of important ethical concepts implicit in virtually every natural language. For instance, all spoken languages contain synonyms for desirable ethical traits such as being kind, openminded, impartial, truthful, honest, compassionate, considerate, and honorable. They also contain hundreds of negative ethical traits such as being selfish, greedy, egotistical, callous, deceitful, hypocritical, disingenuous, prejudiced, bigoted, spiteful, vindictive, cruel, brutal, and oppressive. The essential meanings of these terms are not dependent on either theology or social convention. Living an ethical life emerges from the fact that people are capable of either helping or harming others, of contributing to or damaging the quality of their lives.In addition to the ability to distinguish purely ethical terms from those that are theological or conventional, skilled ethical reasoning presupposes the same range of intellectual skills and traits required in other domains. One must be skilled in breaking reasoning down into its component parts.One must be proficient in assessing reasoning for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness. One must be intellectually humble, intellectually perseverant, and intellectually empathic (Paul & Elder, 2006b, 2009).The Function and Roots of EthicsThe proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those that enhance the well-being of others - which warrant praise - and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others - and thus warrant criticism. …
In the last column we focused (as a primary goal of instruction) on the importance of teaching so that students learn to think their way into and through content. We stressed the need for well-designed daily structures and tactics for fostering deep learning, offering three strategies as examples. In this column, we provide four additional strategies.There is no perfect technique for fostering critical thinking, no ideal method for engaging the intellects of students. The strategies detailed in this column suggest some possible ways for helping students take command of what they are learning, integrate and apply what they are learning, and appropriately question what they are learning. These approaches to teaching and learning can be modified in any number of ways. And of course, any one strategy, if used, would need to be integrated into a welldesigned course plan.Most importantly, each strategy presupposes the use of critical thinking concepts and principles to be effective. Each strategy presupposes that the only way to learn content deeply and truly is to think it into individual thinking, to connect it with other important ideas, and to apply it to everyday life issues and problems (Paul & Elder, 2006).Idea # 4: Teach Students How to Assess Their SpeakingIn a well-designed class, students often engage in oral communication. They articulate what they are learning: explaining, giving examples, posing problems, interpreting information, tracing assumptions, and so forth. They learn to assess what they are saying, becoming aware of when they are being vague, when they need an example, and when their explanations are inadequate. Following are three general strategies to teach students to assess their speaking abilities.First Strategy: Students Teaching StudentsOne of the best ways to learn is to try to teach someone else. Trouble explaining something often indicates a lack of clarity about the concept.Second Strategy: Group Problem SolvingBy putting students in a group and giving them a problem or issue to work on together, their mutual articulation and exchanges will often help them to think better. They often correct each other and so learn to "correct" themselves. Make sure students are routinely applying intellectual standards to their thinking as they discuss issues.Third Strategy: Oral Test on Basic VocabularyOne complex tactic that aids student learning is the oral test. Give students a vocabulary list and time to study the key concepts for the course. Then put them into groups of twos or threes and have them take turns explaining the concepts to each other, encouraging them to assess each other's explanations. Wander about the class listening in, and choose two students who seem prepared for the oral exam. Stop the class and announce that the oral test is going to begin and that "X" and "Y" will be tested first. After testing these two students (and they pass), announce to the class that X and Y have passed and that they are now "certified" to test others. However, anyone "certified" by a student tester must be "spot-tested" by the instructor on one item. If any such student fails the spot test, the person who certified them is "de-certified" (and must repeat the exam). Everyone who passes becomes a certifier and gets paired with a student who has not taken the oral test.By this method, the instructor only tests the first two students. The rest of the process involves directing "traffic" and spot-checking those who are "certified" by a peer. During this assessment the tester should be looking for a beginning understanding of the concepts and the ability to give examples of the concept. Since the students who pass become "certifiers" or "tutors" and are assigned to assess other students (or tutor them), everyone gets multiple experiences explaining, and hearing explanations of, the basic vocabulary.We give a vocabulary list to the students on the first day of class so they know exactly which concepts they will be expected to explain during the oral exam and learn the most basic vocabulary early in the course, vocabulary that is then used on a daily basis in class. …
In the last two columns we introduced the concept of Socratic questioning and its relationship to critical thinking. We illuminated how understanding the concepts embedded in critical thinking naturally generates questions. For example, a thinker who understands the elements of thought asks questions which probe the parts of thinking. A thinker who understands the role of intellectual standards in disciplined reasoning asks questions that target the assessment of thinking. A thinker who understands the need for students to connect learning to their lived experiences gives numerous examples of questions that can be used everyday to foster student engagement.In this column, we focus on the formal mechanics of Socratic questioning. We distinguish three general categories of Socratic questioning: spontaneous, exploratory, and focused. Each of these modes of questioning represents orientations one can adopt in cultivating student thinking. All three require skill in questioning. All three require the instructor to pick from among a wide variety of intellectual moves. All three require judgment in determining when to ask which kind of question. Of course, at any given time, there is no one best question, just better or worse ones.Spontaneous or UnplannedThe key to success here is entering or adopting the Socratic spirit; this occurs when one becomes genuinely curious, truly wondering what students are and are not thinking. Once curiosity is aroused there will be many occasions in which to spontaneously ask students questions that probe their thinking and many opportunities to question what is happening in their minds. The Socratic spirit wants them to become concerned with intellectual standards, with whether or not what they think is true or false, logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable.If a student says that a given angle will be the same as another angle in a geometrical figure, one may spontaneously question how the class might go about proving or disproving this assertion. If a student says, love freedom, the instructor may spontaneously wonder aloud about what such a statement might mean. (Does that mean that Americans love more than other people do or that they live in a free country? What would it mean to live in a free country? Does freedom mean the same thing to all Americans?) If a science student says that most space is empty, one may spontaneously ask a question as to what that might mean; how might it be possible, together, to discover an answer?Such spontaneous discussions provide models of listening critically as well as exploring the beliefs expressed. If something said seems questionable, misleading, or false, Socratic questioning provides a way of helping students become self-correcting, rather than relying on correction by the instructor. Spontaneous Socratic discussion can prove especially useful when students become interested in a topic; when they raise an important issue; when they are on the brink of grasping or integrating a new insight; or when discussion becomes bogged down, confused, or hostile. Socratic questioning provides specific moves which can fruitfully take advantage of student interest. It can help instructors effectively approach an important issue. It can aid in integrating and expanding an insight, move a troubled discussion forward, clarify or sort through what appears confusing, and diffuse frustration or anger.Although by definition there can be no preplanning for a particular spontaneous discussion, becoming familiar and comfortable with generic Socratic questions, developing the art of probing with follow-up questions, and responding in encouraging and helpful ways all assist preparation. Consider the following potential moves:Spontaneous Socratic Questioning Moves* Ask for an example of a point a student has made or of a point you have made.* Ask for evidence or reasons for a position.* Propose a counter-example or two. …
Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing it from other types of questioning is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems.Teachers, students, or indeed anyone interested in probing thinking at a deep level can and should construct Socratic questions and engage in Socratic dialogue. The purpose of using Socratic questioning in teaching may be to probe student thinking; to determine the extent of their knowledge on a given topic, issue, or subject; to model Socratic questioning for them; or to help them analyze a concept or line of reasoning. In the final analysis, students should learn the discipline of Socratic questioning, so that they begin to use it in reasoning through complex issues, in understanding and assessing the thinking of others, and in determining the implications of what they and others think.In teaching, Socratic questioning can be used for at least two purposes:* to deeply probe student thinking and help students begin to distinguish what they know or understand from what they do not know or understand (and thereby help them develop intellectual humility) and* to foster studentsu0027 abilities to ask Socratic questions and help students acquire the powerful tools of Socratic dialogue so that they can use these tools in everyday life (in questioning themselves and others). To this end, it is important to model the questioning strategies mentors want students to emulate and employ. Moreover, students need direct instruction regarding how to construct and ask deep questions.Socratic questioning teaches the importance of questioning in learning (indeed Socrates himself thought that questioning was the only defensible form of teaching). It teaches the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking. It promotes digging beneath the surface of ideas and valuing the development of questioning minds to cultivate deep learning.The art of Socratic questioning is intimately connected with critical thinking because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought. What the word "Socratic" adds to the art of questioning is systematicity, depth, and an abiding interest in assessing the truth or plausibility of ideas.Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions (in its pursuit of meaning and truth); Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth. The goal of critical thinking is to establish an additional level of thinking, a powerful inner voice of reason. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on self-directed, disciplined questioning.In this and the next few columns, we focus on some of the mechanics of Socratic dialogue, the conceptual tools that critical thinking brings to Socratic dialogue, and the importance of questioning in cultivating the disciplined mind. Through a critical thinking perspective, we offer a substantive, explicit, and rich understanding of Socratic questioning.A Taxonomy of Socratic Questions Based on Critical Thinking ConceptsTo formulate questions that probe thinking in a disciplined and productive way, one must understand thinking, how it works, and how it should be assessed. Critical thinking provides the tools for analyzing and assessing reasoning. This is why understanding critical thinking is essential to effective Socratic dialogue This column will focus on the analysis of reasoning. …
In the previous column, we introduced the notion that creative and critical thinking are often understood to be opposite forms of thought: the first based on irrational or unconscious forces, the second on rational and conscious processes; the first undirectable and unteachable, the second directable and teachable. A true understanding of critical and creative thought recognizes them as inseparable, integrated, and unitary. As we pointed out in the first part of this series, creative thinking, especially, must be demystified and brought down to earth. In this column we elaborate this position, emphasizing the following points:1. Reasoning is inherently creative since the mind must daily create the ideas it uses.2. Contrary to conventional wisdom, much creative genius is developed through years of practice and commitment, rather than a result of inborn innate talent.Reasoning as a Creative ActIn the broad sense, all thinking is thinking within a system, and when one has not yet learned a given system-for example, not yet learned the logic of the internal combustion engine, the logic of right triangles, or the logic of dolphin behavior-the mind must bring that system into being within the structure of previously established ways of thinking. Hence, when thinking something through for the first time, to some extent one creates the logic to be used. One brings into being new articulations for specific purposes and reasons, making new assumptions, and forming new concepts. By asking new questions and making new inferences, an individual point of view emerges in a new direction.Indeed, there is a sense in which all reasoned thinking, all genuine acts of figuring out anything whatsoever, even something previously figured out, is a new making, a new series of creative acts, for one rarely recalls previous thought whole cloth. Instead, the thinker remembers only some part of what was figured out and figures out the rest anew (based on the logic of that part and other logical structures more immediately available). One continually creates new understandings and recreates old understandings via similar processes.Consider the process by which an anthropologist, discovering just one bone from an animal, is able to deduce, and thus create, the complete skeleton and the rest of the body of the animal in question. The human mind continually uses some meanings to create others. Meanings, like living things, are found in systems. They do not stand alone in the mind. They are not like marbles in a bag, each marble independent of all the others. They are like bodily systems such as the digestive or nervous system; they work together in relation to each other.To understand the intimate interplay between creative and critical thinking, it is important to understand, at least in part, how the mind creates meaning.In the process of figuring something out, at least three systems are involved:1. The logic to be figured out (the system one is trying to understand or create).2. The logic used to do the figuring (chosen from previously learned or created systems).3. The logic that results, in the end, from the reasoning process and that has to be assessed for its fit or the extent to which it has captured the system to be figured out.In studying history, one may use one's understanding of the logic behind an economic crisis to understand the logic behind another economic crisis (e.g., that of the 1930s vs. 1990s in the USA). The mental reconstruction one creates may or may not make sense of the logic of what was actually going on economically in the 1990s. Or again, one may use, for example, one's understanding of the major themes in a D.H. Lawrence novel (e.g., Sons and Lovers) as an initial framework for understanding the themes of another (e.g., Lady Chatterley's Lover). The resulting understanding may or may not make sense of the actual story. However, in all learning, thinkers mentally create provisional models (small-scale logical systems) for figuring out the system to be grasped. …
