Answers
Remember that the answers I give here all depend on the background knowledge
that is generally available. This background knowledge may be different
from your personal opinion, so from your personal point of view, the burden
of proof will always lie on the person who disagrees with you. From the
point of view of logic, however, the burden of proof lies on he who makes
a moral claim, and on he who makes a claim that is inconsistent with the
best supported information currently available.
I will warn you, however, that there's sort of a trick question to all
this. You can think about things that makes this all more complicated as
you're reading the answers, and especially think about the cases where you
disagree with me about who bears the burden of proof, and I'll explain the
trick at the end.
Albert. The CIA killed John F. Kennedy.
Beth. No they didn't.
Here, the burden of proof lies on Albert. Many people have made many claims
about the Kennedy assassination, but none of these claims is generally accepted
by historians. And although the CIA and its agents have assassinated foreign
leaders, and have done many nasty things to American citizens, it has never
killed any American government officials, so assassinating an American president
would be inconsistent with its established pattern of behavior.
Charlie. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo
Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954.
Desmond. No they didn't.
Here, Desmond bears the burden of proof. Not only is the CIA overthrow
of the Arbenz government extremely well documented by a variety of sources,
the CIA is well-known to indulge in such actions on a regular basis. (However,
if the CIA's actions in Guatemala weren't already documented, then it would
be Charlie who bore the burden of proof. And on a personal basis, if you're
not already aware of this documentation, then Charlie could bear the burden
of proof as far as you're concerned.)
Edgar. Ghosts exist.
Fred. No they don't.
Edgar bears the burden of proof here. No ghost story has ever been reliably
verified. Everything science has ever established in physics and biology
implies that ghosts are absolutely impossible. Belief in ghosts thus absolutely
contradicts all relevant established knowledge. If Edgar wants any rational
person to even think that ghosts might exist, then he has to come up with
some good argument to that effect.
Gerald. Life exists on other planets.
Harold. No it doesn't.
Believe it or not, Harold bears the burden of proof here. While the probability
of life appearing on any given planet out there is extremely small, the
number of planets in the universe is so unimaginably vast that the probability
that life will appear on some other planet is actually extremely high. Since
the probabilities are in favor of Gerald, it follows that Harold bears the
burden of proof.
Irene. It's morally wrong to kill innocent people for food when you have
sufficient vegetables available.
Jessica. No it isn't.
Irene is making a moral claim, so she bears the burden of proof. It may
be an easy burden to meet, but she bears it.
Karen. It's morally wrong to kill innocent animals for food when you have
sufficient vegetables available.
Linda. No it isn't.
Again, the person making the moral claim bears the burden of proof.
Michelle. It's morally okay for two unattached consenting adults to have
sex outside of marriage.
Nina. No it isn't.
Here, Nina bears the burden of proof. Notice that although she raises the
issue of morality, she is actually stating that there is no moral rule here.
Nina is the one claiming that there is a moral rule, so she bears the burden
of proof.
Ophelia. It's morally okay to detonate nuclear devices in every city in
the world.
Paula. No it isn't.
Paula. Even though Paula's burden of proof is amazingly easy to meet, she
is still the one that bears the burden here.
Did you notice the complication? Did it ever happen that you didn't know
where the burden of proof lay until I explained it? Did it ever happen that
you disagreed with me about where the burden lay? Sometimes the location
of the burden of proof is unclear, and it may take careful argumentation
to establish just where the burden really lies. Thus burden of proof is more
complicated than I have made it seem so far. In fact, important questions
sometimes turn out to depend critically on the issue of burden of proof,
and so later in the course we will spend time on burden of proof arguments.
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
