So only a few components of evaluations are discussed in more detail. However, it
can be shown which argumentative steps are necessary, which complexities are
connected with evaluations and which hurdles can occur in the identification and
assessment of relevant evidence. The use of a moral theory can make clear how some
components of evaluations can be completed, and that moral evaluations claiming
intersubjective plausibility are quite possible.
4 Evaluative Reasoning
To capture the different components of evaluations we can consider the rational
process of evaluation “as a process of reasoning” (Taylor 1961, 9). So, we are
interested in the argumentative substantiation of evaluative propositions. The main
argumentative steps in an evaluation are to conclude that the evaluation criteria have
been fulfilled on the basis of certain data (on the properties of the objects to be
evaluated) and defined standards, and to infer the (relative) quality, value, merit,
worth, correctness or similar of the object to be evaluated on the basis of the
fulfilment and weighing of the criteria. The standards determine when certain criteria
are fulfilled. By defining standards, one operationalizes the criteria—one specifies
which characteristics an object of evaluation must have in order to fulfil the criteria.
Taylor calls this the “operational clarification of standards” (Taylor 1961, 9). In the
context of the terminology chosen here, this is regarded as “operationalisation of the
criteria”. Barry (1990, 193) formulates a similar distinction: “It is of considerable
importance to make a distinction between standards and criteria [. . .]. The criterion
remains the same from one context to another; the comparison affects only the
standard. The criterion for ‘being larger than’ is the same whether one is talking
about dogs or horses; it is only the standard defining the minimum size which an
animal has to be before it can be called ‘large’ which varies from one kind of animal
to another.” However, the operationalization of the criteria through the formulation
of standards is to be understood in a broad sense that does not only include the use of
quantified formulations (cf. Taylor 1961, 12).
The following argument is formulated in a standardized way: The argumentative
speech acts are explicitly stated (‘It holds __’ indicates the act of asserting, ‘Since
__’ indicates the act of adducing-as-reason, and ‘Therefore __’ indicates acts of
inference). In this article I use the term ‘proposition’ to refer to the linguistic entities
normally called ‘sentences’ because the latter word is reserved for a unit which is
composed of an illocutionary operator and a proposition. For a presentation of the
language conception used here see (Siegwart 2007).
0 It holds
This rule is a good one.
1 Since
This rule fulfils the criteria C 1 , C 2 , . . ., C n .
2 Since
If a rule fulfils the criteria C 1 , C 2 , . . ., C n then it is a good rule.
112
K. C. Reinmuth
can be shown which argumentative steps are necessary, which complexities are
connected with evaluations and which hurdles can occur in the identification and
assessment of relevant evidence. The use of a moral theory can make clear how some
components of evaluations can be completed, and that moral evaluations claiming
intersubjective plausibility are quite possible.
4 Evaluative Reasoning
To capture the different components of evaluations we can consider the rational
process of evaluation “as a process of reasoning” (Taylor 1961, 9). So, we are
interested in the argumentative substantiation of evaluative propositions. The main
argumentative steps in an evaluation are to conclude that the evaluation criteria have
been fulfilled on the basis of certain data (on the properties of the objects to be
evaluated) and defined standards, and to infer the (relative) quality, value, merit,
worth, correctness or similar of the object to be evaluated on the basis of the
fulfilment and weighing of the criteria. The standards determine when certain criteria
are fulfilled. By defining standards, one operationalizes the criteria—one specifies
which characteristics an object of evaluation must have in order to fulfil the criteria.
Taylor calls this the “operational clarification of standards” (Taylor 1961, 9). In the
context of the terminology chosen here, this is regarded as “operationalisation of the
criteria”. Barry (1990, 193) formulates a similar distinction: “It is of considerable
importance to make a distinction between standards and criteria [. . .]. The criterion
remains the same from one context to another; the comparison affects only the
standard. The criterion for ‘being larger than’ is the same whether one is talking
about dogs or horses; it is only the standard defining the minimum size which an
animal has to be before it can be called ‘large’ which varies from one kind of animal
to another.” However, the operationalization of the criteria through the formulation
of standards is to be understood in a broad sense that does not only include the use of
quantified formulations (cf. Taylor 1961, 12).
The following argument is formulated in a standardized way: The argumentative
speech acts are explicitly stated (‘It holds __’ indicates the act of asserting, ‘Since
__’ indicates the act of adducing-as-reason, and ‘Therefore __’ indicates acts of
inference). In this article I use the term ‘proposition’ to refer to the linguistic entities
normally called ‘sentences’ because the latter word is reserved for a unit which is
composed of an illocutionary operator and a proposition. For a presentation of the
language conception used here see (Siegwart 2007).
0 It holds
This rule is a good one.
1 Since
This rule fulfils the criteria C 1 , C 2 , . . ., C n .
2 Since
If a rule fulfils the criteria C 1 , C 2 , . . ., C n then it is a good rule.
112
K. C. Reinmuth