Lecture 16 - Evaluation

There's one more kind of language that we
need to discuss because it's also used to

stop the skeptical regress. Much like
assuring and guarding and discounting.

This language is evaluative. Just imagine
that a politician says, you ought to

support my health care plan because it
would be good for the country. What is the

word good? Doing here. Now some
philosophers are going to tell you that

the word good is just a way of expressing
your emotions or maybe telling you what to

do. So the politician is saying, yeah for
my healthcare plan or telling you in an

imperative form, you ought ta support my
healthcare plan, but that can't really be

the whole story. Because when someone
says, yay, Duke, like I do when I cheer

for the Duke team. First of all, I'm not
saying that the team is good. I might

cheer for the Duke team even when I know
they're not good. And secondly, you can't

ask me why, if I go yeah Duke. It doesn't
make any sense if you turn to me and say

but why? Why yeah, Duke? It doesn't make
any sense. So merely to express your

emotions with something like yeah, Duke is
very different from saying Duke has a good

team and saying yeah, for my healthcare
plan is very different from saying that

the healthcare plan is good for the
country. Similarly, if I say I don't like

fish, so we shouldn't have fish for
dinner. Well, I don't really owe you a

reason. I can just say, I just don't like
the taste of fish,. end of story. Leave me

alone. I don't know your reason for why I
don't like fish. I just don't but if I

say, it's immoral to eat fish. It's wrong
to eat fish. You ought not to eat fish,

it's a very different story. Now I owe you
a reason. If I say it's immoral to eat

fish, I need to say what's immoral about
it? I need to point to some feature of

eating fish that makes it immoral. I can't
just use that evaluative language without

some kind of reason to back it up. That
would be illegitimate. So, what that shows

is that merely expressing preferences is
very different from making an evaluation

and saying that somethi ng is good or bad
or right or wrong, or immoral or moral.

And one way to capture this feature
evaluative language is to interpret a word

like good as, meet the standards, and bad
as, violates the standards. Notice it's

very vague, 'cause it doesn't tell you
what the standards are. And those

standards will change from one context to
another. If you're talking about a good

painting, the standards of a good painting
are different from when you're talking

about, say, a good investment. Where the
standards are going to be completely

different from the aesthetic case. So if
we interpret good as, meets the standards,

and we say my healthcare program is good
for the country, then that means it meets

the standards for what will make the
country function, in a certain way.

Whereas, if we say eating fish is immoral,
what we're saying is that eating fish

violates a certain kind of standard. And
more specifically, it's a moral standard.

That's why we use the word immoral. So we
can interpret this language in terms of

meat eater violating standards, and then
to get the reason why it's good or bad or

right or wrong or moral or immoral. We can
cite the standard and apply it to the case

in order to give a reason for why the
evaluation holds. But now here's the

trick, when we call it good we don't say
what the standards are. We leave that up

to the context to specify what kind of
standards we're talking about. So, it's

kind of like assuring, when you say, I
assure you, and you might cite some

authority or tell them that you do have
some reason and you don't tell them what

the reason is. When you call it good, you
say it does meet the standards, but you

don't say what the standards are. So by,
alluding to the standards without actually

laying them out. You have made your claim
a little more defensible. Because if you

laid out the standards, they might be
questionable and your audience would know

exactly what to questions and what to
deny, and how to object. But if you simply

say it's good, and all you're saying is,
it meets the st andards.

Then you've avoided an objection, and made
your premise more defensible. And that's

how this type of evaluative language might
help to stave off the skeptical regress.

And here's another way evaluation can
help. We don't always have to agree about

what the standards are. Suppose we're
driving down the road and I say, you know,

we ought to turn left here. And you say,
yeah, we ought to turn left here. Well, I

might think that we ought to turn left
here because that's going to be a quicker

way to get to our destination. But you
might think that we ought to turn left

here because that's going to be a more
beautiful view, and you'll be able to look

out on the hills. But we can agree that we
ought to turn left here. Because we both

agree that turning left meets the
standards. Even though my standards are

efficiency, and getting there quickly and
your standards are aesthetic, and getting

beautiful views. So if you can get more
people to agree to your premises, simply

by saying, this health care plan will be
good for the country, without saying

exactly how it's going to be good. Then
you've avoided people disputing your

objections because they can agree to it,
since they can use their own standards to

determine whether it's good or not. And
that can be yet another way to avoid the

skeptical regress. Notice, that evaluation
can occur at a lot of different levels. We

have some words that are very abstract
like, good and bad, and ought and ought

not, should, should not, right, wrong. And
those words can be used in a lot of

different contexts. You can have the wrong
investment or a good investment or an

investment that you ought to make. But you
can also drive on the right path, or a bad

path, or a way that you ought not to go.
And so, you can have navigational

standards, and economic standards, but
they can all be expressed by these really

general, and abstract, evaluative words
like, good and bad, and right and wrong,

and ought and ought not, and should and
should not, and so on. But other

evaluative words are m uch more specific.
Now, for example you can call a painting

beautiful or ugly. But you don't call
fertilizer beautiful or ugly. You would

never say that a stock is beautiful or
ugly. They're just not the kind of thing

to be evaluated in that way. So an
evaluative word like beautiful or ugly. Is

more specific. It only applies to a small
range of things. Whereas other words

apply, like good and bad, apply to almost
anything. Here's another example, cruel or

brave. A person can be cruel or brave. But
you can't say that a painting is cruel or

brave or a desk is cruel or brave. Or a
chair is cruel or brave. A chair might be

comfortable. But, a painting's not
comfortable. And a soldier's not

comfortable. Soldiers are brave or not,
chairs are comfortable or not. But chairs

are not brave or not, and soldiers are not
comfortable or not. So these evaluative

words, like brave or cowardly, and
beautiful or ugly, or comfortable or

uncomfortable apply only to limited ranges
of things rather than to, just about

anything. So we have very general or
abstract evaluative words. And we have

more specific or concrete evaluative
words. And, of course, which ones are

specific or concrete will vary. Some are
more concrete than others. It's not an

absolute dichotomy but some words that are
evaluative really will apply to almost

anything and other words apply to a more
limited class and they vary on how limited

that class of things that they apply to
will be. So, you might ask, why are all

these words evaluative words? Well think
about it, if you want to explain a more

limited evaluative word like beautiful,
you want to explain what it means. You

need to. Defined it in terms of the more
general words like good. If you wanna say

it's beautiful, that kinda means looks
good. And no, that's not quite right, but

basically when you wanna define the word
beautiful, you need to cite one of the

more general words, good, and then cite
the specific way in which it's good,

namely the way it looks. And when you
wanna say an economic word like bargain .

Bargain means a good price. It sells for a
good price. And a good price is a low

price. So, when you define what a bargain
is, you need to cite the word good in

order to define bargain. So the relation
between these very general. Evaluative

words and the more specific evaluative
words that makes them all evaluative is

that you need to define the specific
evaluative words in terms of the more

general ones. So it all comes down to what
makes something evaluative is it's

connection to what's good or bad, or right
or wrong, or what ought or ought not to be

done, or should or shouldn't be done, and
so on. Now the trickiest cases of

evaluative words are. Words that are
contextually evaluative. They don't

actually get defined by good or bad or
right or wrong, as their general meaning.

But they do suggest an evaluation in a
particular context. Let me give you an

example of what I mean. A conservative
politician might criticize her opponent by

saying. Well his policies are way too
liberal. Now, by calling them liberal, is

that a criticism? Well, she intends it as
a criticism. But, does the word liberal

mean that it's bad? Not really, if you
think about it. Because the opponent might

say, I'm proud to be a liberal. Being
liberal's good. Yes, it's liberal. So

what? Yes, it's liberal. Nothing wrong
with that. The word liberal by itself

doesn't mean that it's bad. Even though
the conservative thinks that things that

are liberal are bad. So that word liberal
is not evaluative in the strict sense.

Because it doesn't get defined by the
words good or bad, or right or wrong, or

should or should not. It's only evaluative
in the context. It suggests an evaluation

because of the assumptions of the speaker.
But it doesn't in and of itself mean that

anything is bad, or good for that matter.
Because of this difference we will call

language evaluative only when it's openly
and literally evaluative. So that it gets

defined in terms of words like good or
bad, or right or wrong and not when it's

merely contextually evaluative. That is, i
n the context, given the assumptions of

the speaker, this person means to be
suggesting an evaluation. If they're not

openly saying this is good or bad or right
or wrong then. They're not really using

what language that we will call
evaluative. But there were a couple of

tricky examples that are worth bringing
up. Okay? You might think that if you take

two good things and put ''em together it
gets even better. And when you add a bad

thing to a good thing it makes it worse.
At least that's the way it usually works.

But notice that when you say something's
good that suggests it's good. But when you

say, eh, it's pretty good. Then you just
added pretty, which is something good to

the word good. But, pretty good, it's not
really any better than, good. It might

even be worse. But then you can add a
negative word in the middle. Yeah. That

was pretty darn good. Well, that means
it's very good. So, you've actually taken

a negative word, darn, and put it in the
middle of two positive words, pretty and

good. And made something that means very
good. So, you really have to think

carefully about exactly what the language
means. It's not going to be a simple

formula of adding and subtracting goods
and bads to figure out whether the

language is evaluative. Now, another word
that's surprising is the word to. I like

spicy food so, when I say this food is
spicy. That's good. Or at least it's

neutral. To say it's spicy to me means I'm
probably going to like it. But notice that

if we just add that little word too, if I
were to say this food is too spicy, that

means it's bad. The little word too takes
a positive evaluation, or sometimes just

something that's neutral, and makes it
bad. So the word too is actually a

negative evaluative word because it turns
what was neutral or positive into

something bad. It moves it in that
negative evaluative direction. So it's a

negative evaluative word. So is there
anything wrong with using evaluative

language? No. Some people seem to think
that you shouldn't evaluate at all, you

should just descri be.
But, they're just kidding themselves. Try

going through life without deciding what's
good or bad, or right or wrong, or what

you ought or ought not to do. You can't
really live your life without making

evaluations at some point. So it's a
mistake to think that evaluation is always

bad. Of course, when you do evaluate, it's
not like saying yea Duke. You have to give

a reason. So you should think about the
standards that you're applying and why

they apply to this case. That's going to
be your reason for evaluating the thing as

good or bad. Now it's often going to be
hard to come up with the exact standards

that you're applying. Because people tend
to think of things as good or bad without

getting very specific about what the
standards are. So you're not always going

to be able to tell people what your
standards are. And when you ask them,

they're not always going to be able to
specify what their standards are. But it's

still going to be a useful exercise,
whenever you make an evaluation, to think

about why you think this thing is good or
bad or right or wrong. What are the

standards that you're applying? And when
somebody disagrees with you, to ask about

what their standards are, so that you can
understand where the disagreement is

coming from. Although evaluation can be
very useful and legitimate, it can also be

dangerous. Because some people use
evaluative terms without reasons. Let's

call that slanting. You slant when you use
an evaluative word and don't give any

justification for that use of the word. So
you might call somebody an idiot or queer,

and you're using an evaluative word, or at
least you take it to be negatively

evaluative. And you haven't given any
reason why there's anything wrong with

what you're calling that nasty word. Now,
that's slanting if you don't have any

reason. And that can be terribly
illegitimate. When do people do it? Well,

they typically do it when they don't have
any reason. If you don't have any reason

for your evaluation, you just use some
nasty name, like you idiot. And, so when

people start using language like that,
when they start slanting, then that's a

good indication to you as a critic that
that's the point at which their argument

is probably weak. They're using that kind
of language to paper over cracks, as I put

it before, in their argument so as to hide
what's the real weakness. So we can use

evaluative language in arguments, and how
it gets placed at certain points to signal

where the weaknesses and the strengths in
the argument are. So now, what we've got

is, we've got argument markers, we've got
assuring terms, guarding terms,

discounting terms, evaluative language.
And in the next few lectures, we're going

to look at a general technique that looks
at all those different types of language

and uses those different categories to
analyze some real passages that we found

in newspapers. But before that, let's do a
few exercises, just to make sure that you

understand evaluation.