Today’s Outline Discussion of Exercise VI on page 39. A review and discussion of subjectivism, conventionalism and objectivism. An introduction to the language of arguments and to conditionals. Paper topics for your paper will be posted this Thursday. Papers are due, in class, on Tuesday, February 28.

Objectivism versus Subjectivism Subjectivism is the claim that value statements express a person’s feelings. Informally, we said that for a subjectivist value statements are true or false because someone believes them so. Objectivism claims that the truth or falsity of a statement does not depend on individual mental states (e.g., one’s beliefs). If there are standards of evaluation for an object, then it is not a matter of personal opinion whether or not the object meets the standard. It is compatible with objectivism that the relevant standards be matters of convention. We might contrast the case where there is an objective standard with the case of expressing one’s feelings about the object.

Objectivism vs. Subjectivism (cont.) Consider the following statements. I appreciate Diebenkorn paintings. Diebenkorn is an excellent painter. The statement in (1) is neither true nor false; it expresses my sentiments about the painter’s work. But, the statement in (2) is true or false, and which it is depends on whether or not Diebenkorn meets certain standards. One might agree that Diebenkorn is an excellent painter and still not care for his paintings. Disagreeing about what the standards are is not the same as claiming that value judgments are subjective. We might well disagree about the proper standard for a good painter, but it does not follow that any painter one likes is good.

Arguments Among the uses to which we can (and do) put language is to make arguments and support positions. We can define an argument as a set of statements (at least two) where one statement is recognized as the conclusion and the other statements are offered as support for that conclusion. We call these the premises. Given our Gricean rules, in making an argument one commits herself to the truth of the conclusion and each of the supporting assumptions. That is, one is taken to assert the conclusion.

Recognizing Arguments Argument are frequently set off by certain words. It is worth noting, however, that not all arguments will stand out in this way. Premise Words: since, because, as, such that Conclusion Words: so, therefore, thus, hence, then Arguments might also be set off by argumentative performatives, e.g, I conclude that, I suppose that. By uttering such a phrase one thereby formulates an argument.

Conditionals Any sentence of the form If…then… is called a conditional. Example: If there is a good snow pack in the Sierra this year then there will not be a drought in San Francisco. Antecedent – the part of the conditional that appears after the “if”. Consequent – the part of the conditional that appears after the “then”. In uttering (1) I am not asserting anything. I do not claim that either that the antecedent or that the consequent is true. I am expressing a relationship.

Conditionals and Arguments Conditionals are not arguments. However, conditionals are often employed as part of an argument. (They may even be used a conclusion.) So, we might get something like the following example. If you want lower taxes you should vote for a flat tax. So, you should vote for a flat tax.

Standard Form Logicians, people who make it their life’s work to study logic and its rules, have developed a standard form for deductive arguments. Consider the following example. Either my keys are in my pocket or I am in trouble for misplacing them. They are not in my pocket, so I’m in trouble. Either my keys are in my pocket or I am in trouble. My keys are not in my pocket. I am in trouble. In the standard form of a deductive argument the premises are placed above a single line. The conclusion occurs below that line.

Standard Form (cont.) Why should be bother with standard form? Standard form allows one to see more easily the relationship of premise(s) to conclusion, Also, putting arguments into this form forces one to identify the premises and conclusion. Put the following into standard form: If you want lower taxes you should vote for a flat tax. So, you should vote for a flat tax.

For Next Time Next time we will begin talking about the standards of evaluation for arguments, what makes an argument good or bad.