Critical Thinking, 2024 Release
by Brooke Noel Moore
Complete Chapter Solutions Manual
are included (Ch 1 to 12)
** Immediate Download
** Swift Response
** All Chapters included
,Table of Contents are given below
1. Driving Blindfolded
2. Reasoning and Arguments
3. Vagueness, Generality, Ambiguity, and
Definition
4 Believability of Claims and Credibility
of Sources
5. Linguistic Persuasion Devices
6. Bogus Logos Part I: Relevance
Fallacies
7. Bogus Logos Part II: Induction
Fallacies
8. Bogus Logos III: Formal Fallacies,
Fallacies of Ambiguity, and Fallacies
Involving Miscalculating Probabilities
9. Deductive Arguments I (Natural
Deduction): Categorical Logic
10. Deductive Arguments II: Truth-
Functional (Sentential) Logic
11. Inductive Reasoning
12. Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning
,Solutions Manual organized in reverse order, with the last chapter
displayed first, to ensure that all chapters are included in this
document. (Complete Chapters included Ch12-1)
Chapter 12
Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning
Chapter Recap
The key points in this chapter are as follows:
• Value judgments express values.
• Moral (value) judgments express moral values.
• Certain words, especially “ought,” “should,” “right,” “wrong,” and their opposites, are
used in moral value judgments, but can also be used in a nonmoral sense.
• Reasoning about morality is distinguished from other types of reasoning in that the
conclusions it tries to establish are moral judgments.
• Deriving a moral judgment about a specific act requires showing that the judgment falls
under a general moral statement.
• In a case in which we disagree as to the morality of a specific act we can point to this
general moral statement as the source of disagreement.
• People are sometimes inconsistent in their moral views: They treat similar cases as if they
were different, even when they cannot tell us what is importantly different about them.
• When two or more cases that are being treated differently seem similar, the burden of proof
is on the person who is treating them differently to explain what is different about them.
• The foundations of general moral statements are provided by outcome morality, rule
morality, virtue morality, moral relativism and subjectivism, and religious absolutism.
• When it isn’t clear whether a specific act falls under a general moral statement in a given
situation, the issue might be resolved by examining the act in terms of its likely outcome,
adherence to a moral rule such as the Golden Rule, or compatibility with how a person of
good character would act.
• Reasoning in a civil or criminal proceeding involves trying to establish to a judge or jury
that a specific wrongdoing was done by a specific party.
• Whether what a party did qualifies as a specific legal wrongdoing depends on whether it
falls under the definition of the wrongdoing. Sometimes this involves deciding whether an
act is analogous to an act that has previously been ruled as a wrongdoing.
• Legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle are
grounds for justifying laws that proscribe conduct.
• Precedent is a kind of analogical argument by means of which current cases are settled in
accordance with guidelines set by cases decided previously.
• Whether a precedent governs in a given case is decided on grounds similar to those of any
, other analogical argument.
• To reason aesthetically is to make judgments within a conceptual framework that
integrates facts and values.
• Aesthetic value is often identified as the capacity to fulfill a function, such as to create
pleasure or promote social change.
• Alternatively, aesthetic value is defined in terms of a special aesthetic property or form
found in works of art.
• Still another view treats aesthetic judgments as expressions of tastes.
• Reasoned argument about aesthetic value helps us to see, hear, or otherwise perceive art in
changed or expanded ways and to enhance our appreciation of art.
• A critic who gives reasons in support of an aesthetic verdict forges agreement by getting
others to share perceptions of the work. The greater the extent to which we share such
aesthetic perceptions, the more we can reach agreement about aesthetic value.
Answers to Text Exercises
Exercise 12-1
1. ▲Value judgment
2. Not a value judgment
3. Value judgment
4. ▲Value judgment
5. Not a value judgment
6. Not a value judgment
7. ▲Value judgment
8. Value judgment
9. Value judgment
10. ▲Not a value judgment
Exercise 12-2
1. ▲Not a value judgment, although it surely hints at one (perhaps a value judgment if you
think of “luxurious” as connoting a positive value)
2. Not a value judgment
3. Value judgment
4. ▲Value judgment
5. Not a value judgment
6. Not a value judgment
7. ▲Not a value judgment in the ordinary sense, but since rides are often evaluated by degree
by Brooke Noel Moore
Complete Chapter Solutions Manual
are included (Ch 1 to 12)
** Immediate Download
** Swift Response
** All Chapters included
,Table of Contents are given below
1. Driving Blindfolded
2. Reasoning and Arguments
3. Vagueness, Generality, Ambiguity, and
Definition
4 Believability of Claims and Credibility
of Sources
5. Linguistic Persuasion Devices
6. Bogus Logos Part I: Relevance
Fallacies
7. Bogus Logos Part II: Induction
Fallacies
8. Bogus Logos III: Formal Fallacies,
Fallacies of Ambiguity, and Fallacies
Involving Miscalculating Probabilities
9. Deductive Arguments I (Natural
Deduction): Categorical Logic
10. Deductive Arguments II: Truth-
Functional (Sentential) Logic
11. Inductive Reasoning
12. Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning
,Solutions Manual organized in reverse order, with the last chapter
displayed first, to ensure that all chapters are included in this
document. (Complete Chapters included Ch12-1)
Chapter 12
Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning
Chapter Recap
The key points in this chapter are as follows:
• Value judgments express values.
• Moral (value) judgments express moral values.
• Certain words, especially “ought,” “should,” “right,” “wrong,” and their opposites, are
used in moral value judgments, but can also be used in a nonmoral sense.
• Reasoning about morality is distinguished from other types of reasoning in that the
conclusions it tries to establish are moral judgments.
• Deriving a moral judgment about a specific act requires showing that the judgment falls
under a general moral statement.
• In a case in which we disagree as to the morality of a specific act we can point to this
general moral statement as the source of disagreement.
• People are sometimes inconsistent in their moral views: They treat similar cases as if they
were different, even when they cannot tell us what is importantly different about them.
• When two or more cases that are being treated differently seem similar, the burden of proof
is on the person who is treating them differently to explain what is different about them.
• The foundations of general moral statements are provided by outcome morality, rule
morality, virtue morality, moral relativism and subjectivism, and religious absolutism.
• When it isn’t clear whether a specific act falls under a general moral statement in a given
situation, the issue might be resolved by examining the act in terms of its likely outcome,
adherence to a moral rule such as the Golden Rule, or compatibility with how a person of
good character would act.
• Reasoning in a civil or criminal proceeding involves trying to establish to a judge or jury
that a specific wrongdoing was done by a specific party.
• Whether what a party did qualifies as a specific legal wrongdoing depends on whether it
falls under the definition of the wrongdoing. Sometimes this involves deciding whether an
act is analogous to an act that has previously been ruled as a wrongdoing.
• Legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle are
grounds for justifying laws that proscribe conduct.
• Precedent is a kind of analogical argument by means of which current cases are settled in
accordance with guidelines set by cases decided previously.
• Whether a precedent governs in a given case is decided on grounds similar to those of any
, other analogical argument.
• To reason aesthetically is to make judgments within a conceptual framework that
integrates facts and values.
• Aesthetic value is often identified as the capacity to fulfill a function, such as to create
pleasure or promote social change.
• Alternatively, aesthetic value is defined in terms of a special aesthetic property or form
found in works of art.
• Still another view treats aesthetic judgments as expressions of tastes.
• Reasoned argument about aesthetic value helps us to see, hear, or otherwise perceive art in
changed or expanded ways and to enhance our appreciation of art.
• A critic who gives reasons in support of an aesthetic verdict forges agreement by getting
others to share perceptions of the work. The greater the extent to which we share such
aesthetic perceptions, the more we can reach agreement about aesthetic value.
Answers to Text Exercises
Exercise 12-1
1. ▲Value judgment
2. Not a value judgment
3. Value judgment
4. ▲Value judgment
5. Not a value judgment
6. Not a value judgment
7. ▲Value judgment
8. Value judgment
9. Value judgment
10. ▲Not a value judgment
Exercise 12-2
1. ▲Not a value judgment, although it surely hints at one (perhaps a value judgment if you
think of “luxurious” as connoting a positive value)
2. Not a value judgment
3. Value judgment
4. ▲Value judgment
5. Not a value judgment
6. Not a value judgment
7. ▲Not a value judgment in the ordinary sense, but since rides are often evaluated by degree
