5 4C H A P T E R 3 ■ T h e L a n g u a g e o f A r g u m e n tEvaluative Language
Arguments are often filled with evaluations, so it is important to figure out
what evaluative language means. We will begin with the clearest cases of
evaluative language, which occur when we say simply that something is
good or bad, that some course of action is right or wrong, or that something
should or should not (or ought to or ought not to) be done.
Such evaluative terms often come into play when one is faced with a
choice or decision. If you are deciding which shirt to buy, and a friend tells
you, “That one’s good,” your friend would normally be taken to be suggest-
ing that you get it. A passenger who says, “That’s the wrong turn,” is telling
the driver not to turn that way. Evaluative language is, in these ways, used
to perform speech acts of prescribing action.
Evaluative language is also often used to express emotion. When a fan says,
“That band is great,” this usually expresses admiration for their music and
perhaps a desire to hear more. After a meal, someone who announces, “That
was horrible,” is often expressing aversion or even disgust at the food. To
say, “That’s too bad,” is often to express disappointment or sadness.
Evaluative language is also typically used to bring about certain effects.
When a mother tells her son that that he ought to keep his promises, she not
only prescribes that her son not lie and expresses disapproval of lying; she
also standardly intends to have an effect on his behavior—she tries to get
him to keep his promises. And when war protesters call a war immoral, they
are normally trying to get anyone listening to join their protest or at least
share their disapproval. Thus, evaluative language is used to perform con-
versational acts of changing people’s behavior and feelings.
There is still more to the meaning of evaluative language. In most cases,
we call something “good” or “right” because we believe that it meets or
satisfies some relevant standard, and we call something “bad” or “wrong”
because we believe that it violates some relevant standard. This is, roughly,
the content of evaluative claims.
On this account, calling something good or bad by itself can be fairly
empty, because to say that something satisfies or violates some standard does
not explicitly specify which standard is satisfied or violated. Such remarks
gain content—sometimes a very rich content—by virtue of the particular
standards they invoke. This explains why the word “good” can be applied
to so many different kinds of things. When we say that Hondas are good
cars, we are probably applying standards that involve reliability, efficiency,
comfort, and so on. We call someone a good firefighter because we think
the person is skilled at the tasks of a firefighter, is motivated to do those
tasks, works well with other firefighters, and so on. Our standards for call-
ing someone an ethically good person concern honesty, generosity, fairness,
and so on. The standards we have for calling something a good car, a good
firefighter, and an (ethically) good person have little in common. Even so,97364_ch03_ptg01_041-058.indd 54 11/14/13 1:53 PM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.