The terms “good” and “bad” can apply to almost anything, but other evaluative terms are more specialized. A bargain has a good price. A beautiful painting looks good. A catchy tune has a good melody. A courageous person is good at facing danger. An honest person tells the truth when it is good to do so (but can remain silent when that is better). Such terms are evaluative because they cannot be explained or defined adequately without referring to what is good and thereby to some relevant standards.
Speakers often use terms for evaluation even when those words are not evaluative in themselves. If I say that my child died, I surely evaluate this death as bad, but all I say explicitly is that this death occurred. I do not openly call it bad, and I can define when a death occurs without implying that the death is bad. Hence, the word “death” is not by itself an evaluative word, even though death is bad. Similarly, to call someone liberal is not in itself an evaluative word, even though conservatives sometimes criticize their opponents by calling them liberal. Liberals are proud to be liberals, so they do not see this word as a negative evaluation. To call someone liberal is, therefore, only to describe that person’s political views and is not to say that the person meets or fails to meet any evaluative or normative standards. Hence, words like “liberal” and “conservative” are not intrinsically evaluative.
Let’s apply this point to our previous example of the United States travel ban. Its defenders will say that it is dangerous to issue visas to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. What does it mean to call this dangerous? It seems to mean that it is too risky. But what makes it too risky instead of just risky? This additional word seems to mean that it exceeds the standards of acceptable risk. That appeal to standards shows why the term “dangerous” is a hidden evaluation. The same applies on the other side of this debate. Opponents of the travel ban argue that it is safe to issue visas to some applicants from these six countries. Do they mean that this creates no risk at all? That would be obviously implausible, so it is unlikely that they mean this. What they mean instead is probably that issuing these visas meets the standards of acceptable risk. It is not too risky. Understanding these claims in terms of relevant standards, thus, clarifies the issue. The disagreement is over how much risk is created by issuing visas and how much risk is acceptable. Locating the debate in this way will not resolve it, of course, but it helps each side appreciate the other.
Now we can see how evaluative language could stop skeptical regresses. Recall that assuring terms claim there is some reason without specifying any particular reason, thereby avoiding objections to any particular reason. Evaluation works like that. When one side of a debate calls something good, they say that it meets the relevant standards. They do not, however, specify what those standards are. Even when they use a thick term, such as when they call a policy “safe” or “dangerous,” they locate a general kind of standard but still do not indicate precisely what that standard dictates. This vagueness makes it harder for opponents to object, because they do not know which standards to object to. In addition, evaluative language can create alliances among people with very different standards. You and I can agree that a route to our destination is good, even if you call it good because it is short, and I call it good because it has beautiful views. You and I can agree that a fight between us would be bad, even if you call it bad because it is bad for you, and I call it bad because it is bad for me. Thus, we can agree on evaluative premises in an argument, even if we accept those premises on very different standards. That agreement can obviate any need to ask for further justification of these premises, so it can provide a shared starting point for arguments.
Discounting
A fourth and final way to handle objections is to anticipate and defuse them. It might seem odd to raise new objections to your own position. Are you trying to refute yourself? However, if you state an objection and respond to it before your opponents do, then you get to formulate that objection in the way that you want instead of in the way that they would prefer. You also make your opponents reluctant to object to your premises, because their objection will seem redundant after you have already dealt with that issue. And you get to discount this objection—that is, say why you think it does not matter. This strategy can sometimes bring an end to the argument.
These functions are performed by discounting terms. Simple examples abound in everyday life. Contrast these two sentences:
(1) Ramona is smart but boring.
(2) Ramona is boring but smart.
The difference is subtle but crucial: Someone who says (1) probably does not want to spend time with Ramona, because she is boring. In contrast, someone who says (2) probably does want to spend time with Ramona, because she is smart. What comes before or after the word “but” makes all the difference.
This asymmetry arises because each of these sentences makes three claims. First, both (1) and (2) imply that Ramona is both smart and boring. In this way, “but” resembles “and,” though it adds more. Second, discounting terms like “but” also suggest some conflict or tension between the two claims. I can say that Ramona is strong and tall, but it sounds odd to say that Ramona is strong but tall, since there is no conflict between being strong and being tall. In contrast, there is a conflict or tension between being smart and being boring, because her being smart is a reason to spend time with Ramona, whereas her being boring is a reason not to spend time with Ramona. Third, sentences with discounting terms also indicate which side prevails in the conflict. The word “but” suggests that the claim after “but” is more important than the claim before “but.” That is why people who say “Ramona is smart but boring” do not want to spend time with Ramona, because they see her being boring as more important than her being smart. In contrast, people who say “Ramona is boring but smart” do want to spend time with Ramona, because they see her being smart as more important than her being boring. This third claim explains the difference between sentences (1) and (2).
Other discounting terms make the same three claims but in the opposite direction. Consider a political example. Dilma Rousseff was president of Brazil from 2011 until she was impeached at the end of August 2016. During July 2016, while Rousseff was still in the process of being impeached, a Brazilian might say:
(3) Although Rousseff is the president of our country, she is corrupt.
(4) Although Rousseff is corrupt, she is the president of our country.
These sentences claim that Rousseff is both president and corrupt, and they suggest some tension between those claims. Her being president is a reason to respect Rousseff, but her being corrupt is a reason not to respect Rousseff. In addition, the term “although” usually indicates that what comes immediately after it is less important than the claim in the connected clause. That is why someone who says (3) with the right intonation suggests that we do not owe respect to Rousseff, because of her corruption. In contrast, someone who says (4) with the right intonation suggests that we do owe respect to Rousseff, because she is the president of our country. The placement of the claims reveals the speaker’s priorities.
These two patterns recur in other discounting terms, including “though,” “even though,” “even if,” “while,” “whereas,” “however,” “yet,” “still,” “nevertheless,” and “nonetheless.” All of these terms imply both of the claims that they connect, suggest a conflict between those claims, and rank those claims in importance to the issues at hand.
Arguers often use discounting terms to protect and support their premises. They might say something like, “You should let Rousseff speak. Although her critics might object that she is corrupt, she is still president.” The second sentence responds to the critics’ objection to letting her speak and also adds a premise (“She is president”) to support the conclusion that you should let her speak. Raising the objection and responding to it make critics more reluctant to object to your premises, so it can sometimes stop an argument.
Let’s apply this lesson to ou
r continuing example of the United States travel ban. Defenders of the travel ban might say, “Sure, most Muslims from those six countries are not terrorists, but we cannot tell which ones are.” This sentence heads off the objection that the ban mistakenly assumes that most Muslims from those countries are terrorists since defenders of the ban just explicitly denied that assumption. On the other side, opponents of the travel ban might say, “Admittedly, we cannot always trust local documents or be sure who is a terrorist, but extreme vetting will make some cases clear.” This sentence explains why (and thereby admits that) it is difficult to tell who is a terrorist, so it heads off an imagined objection that opponents of the ban are so naïve as to assume that it is easy to tell who is a terrorist. Both cases of discounting here prevent a potential misinterpretation and thereby increase the chances of mutual understanding and productive discussion. By mentioning both the objection and the response, these sentences bring to light reasons on both sides of the issue. The resulting awareness of competing considerations can increase the odds of finding a compromise that satisfies the parties and the reasons on both sides. This is another way in which discounting objections can improve arguments.
HOW CAN WORDS WORK TOGETHER?
We have encountered ways to introduce arguments (argument markers) as well as ways to stop arguments (guarding, assuring, evaluating, and discounting terms). Each of these bits of language is fascinating and complex. There is a lot more to learn about them and from them. The best way to learn more is to practice identifying these words in real arguments. That is the goal of close analysis.
As an illustration, we will work slowly and carefully through one extended example. It comes from an advertisement for Equal Exchange fair trade coffee.8 Let’s begin by reading the whole advertisement to see its overall structure:
It may be a little early in the morning to bring this up, but if you buy coffee from large corporations, you are inadvertently maintaining the system which keeps small farmers poor while lining the pockets of rich corporations. By choosing Equal Exchange coffee, you can help to make a change. We believe in trading directly with small farming cooperatives at mutually agreed-upon prices with a fixed minimum rate. Then, should the coffee market decline, the farmers are still guaranteed a fair price. So have a cup of Equal Exchange coffee and make a small farmer happy. Of course, your decision to buy Equal Exchange need not be completely altruistic. For we take as much pride in refining the taste of our gourmet coffees as we do in helping the farmers who produce them. For more information about Equal Exchange or to order our line of gourmet, organic, and shade-grown coffee directly, call 1 800 406 8289.
To perform a close analysis of this passage, we need to identify its argument markers as well as its guarding, assuring, discounting, and evaluating terms. That exercise will reveal its central arguments.
The second word is already worthy of comment. Why do the authors say, “It may be a little early in the morning to bring this up” instead of “It is a little early in the morning to bring this up”? Because readers might see this advertisement at any time in the day. If they see it in the evening, then it is not true that it is early in the morning. To avoid starting with a falsehood, the authors deploy the guarding term “may.” The fifth word “little” also seems to guard against the objection that it is not much too early. In any case, this kind of guarding is a bit unusual, because this sentence is not part of the central argument. The main point does not depend on what time of day the article is read.
The next noteworthy word is “but.” We saw that “but” is a paradigm discounting term. What does it discount here? That is not completely clear, but one interpretation is plausible. The rest of the sentence begins the argument, as we will see, and that argument is quite serious. It will suggest that buying the wrong kind of coffee harms needy victims. That issue is too heavy for most people to discuss while they are still waking up in the morning. Consequently, many people are likely to object to having this argument brought up while they are drinking their first cup of coffee. The term “but” anticipates this objection and indicates that what follows is more important.
What follows is an if-then sentence also called a conditional: “if you buy coffee from large corporations, you are inadvertently maintaining the system which keeps small farmers poor while lining the pockets of rich corporations.” Notice that the authors do not accuse people of buying coffee from large corporations or of maintaining the system that keeps small farmers poor. After all, some readers might not drink coffee or they might already purchase fair trade coffee from Equal Exchange.
What is this conditional sentence doing? Its point comes from the word “poor.” There is nothing wrong with maintaining a system if the system is not bad, but there is something wrong with keeping small farmers poor if it is bad to be poor. Notice that whether someone is poor does not depend only on how much currency or how many possessions they have. A person who makes a million rupees (about US$16,000) a year might be rich in areas where that is sufficient to live well but still poor in areas where that is not sufficient to live a life that is good enough. Thus, to call someone “poor” seems to mean that they do not make or have enough to meet some minimum standards of a good life. In that sense, it is bad to be poor, so “poor” is an evaluative term. (Of course, this does not mean that poor people are bad, but only that their levels of income and wealth are bad.) Now, if it is bad in this way to be poor, then it is bad to keep small farmers poor; and it is also bad to maintain a system with that bad effect, so it is bad to buy coffee from large corporations, if that maintains a bad system, as the sentence claims. We can see how the negative force of the evaluative term “poor” reverberates all the way back to the very beginning of the conditional sentence in the advertisement and implies that it is bad to buy coffee from large corporations.
What about “lining the pockets”? Is that phrase also evaluative? It is not clear, partly because it is metaphorical. There is nothing wrong with lined pockets. However, the metaphor suggests lining (or filling) pockets with money and also suggests that the money is being hidden in the linings of pockets. The reason for hiding the money is presumably that it was obtained unfairly. If this is what the metaphor suggests, then “lining the pockets of rich corporations” also violates standards of fairness, so it is bad. This additional point, thus, reinforces the claim that the system stinks, so you should not maintain it by buying coffee from large corporations.
Why do the authors add the adverb “inadvertently”? Perhaps because the authors do not want to accuse readers of intentionally harming poor people. Such an accusation would be hard to prove and could backfire by angering the audience and making them stop reading. The authors want to show readers how to do better without blaming them individually for the harms of the system. In addition, by calling this harm inadvertent, the authors suggest that people who buy coffee from large corporations do not know what they are doing to poor farmers, so they have something to learn by reading on.
The first conclusion is then that the current system stinks, but the main point of the advertisement is not simply to stop readers from buying coffee from large corporations. After all, they could give up coffee entirely. Instead, the authors want readers to buy their coffee from Equal Exchange. To give a reason for this, the authors need a more positive argument.
The positive argument begins with the next sentence: “By choosing Equal Exchange coffee, you can help to make a change.” This sentence does not actually say that change is good. Some changes might make the system worse. However, after the first sentence of the advertisement showed why the old system was bad, the authors now seem to assume that making a change is good.
This sentence still does not explicitly say that choosing Equal Exchange coffee will in fact change anything. The reason is that the phrase “can help” contains two guarding terms. To say that people help to make a change is weaker than to say that they do make a change, and to say that people can help to make a change is weaker than to sa
y that they do help to make a change. Weakening this premise twice makes it easier to defend. Opponents cannot object that buying coffee from Equal Exchange is not enough by itself to change the system, because the authors of the advertisement never make that unguarded claim. Yet, despite its weakness, the doubly guarded premise is enough to support the conclusion that readers should buy Equal Exchange coffee if readers want to have some chance of being part of the solution to the problems of poor coffee farmers. That chance will not be enough to satisfy some readers. Still, some possibility of good change is better than maintaining a bad system, so this doubly guarded claim is enough reason for many readers to drink Equal Exchange coffee.
The next sentence is tricky: “We believe in trading directly with small farming cooperatives at mutually agreed-upon prices with a fixed minimum rate.” The authors tell you what Equal Exchange believes in, but never actually asserts that they do what they believe in. The term “believe” here might be seen as a type of guarding, because it weakens the claim in order to avoid the objection that Equal Exchange does not always actually trade directly with small farming cooperatives at mutually agreed-upon prices with a fixed minimum rate. Still, the authors clearly invite readers to assume that Equal Exchange does what they believe in.
This sentence also suggests that what they believe in is good, so it is supposed to be good to trade directly with small farming cooperatives at mutually agreed-upon prices with a fixed minimum rate. However, none of the words in this sentence is explicitly evaluative. To call an action trade is not to say whether it is good or bad. To say that trade is direct is not to say that it is good or bad. To say that prices are mutually agreed-upon is not to evaluate the agreement as fair or good, since some mutual agreements are unfair and bad. To say that a rate has a fixed minimum is not to say that the minimum is high enough to be fair or good. The authors never explain why any of this is good. Is that a problem for the argument? Not necessarily. It is obvious that the authors see these things as good, and the authors might be trying to reach only audiences who share those evaluations. Maybe the authors are not addressing anyone who thinks that it is bad for prices to be mutually agreed on. If so, then the argument might reach everyone whom the authors are trying to reach.
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Page 10