Critical Thinking: Beliefs, Claims, Objective/Subjective Distinctions, and Moral Subjectivism (Moore & Parker)

Beliefs and Claims

• The ultimate objective of thinking critically is to come to conclusions that are correct and to make decisions that are wise. The method to achieve this objective is to evaluate thinking by the standards of rationality.
• When we reach a conclusion, we hold a belief. Concluding involves believing: e.g., concluding that the battery is dead means you believe the battery is dead.
• Key terms and how they interrelate:
  • Belief: something you believe; propositional; expressible in a declarative sentence that can be true or false.
  • Judgment: another term for belief/opinion in this context.
  • Opinion: essentially the same as belief or judgment in declarative form.
  • Claim/Assertion: a propositional statement that can state a belief; often used to defend or present a belief.
  • All of these are propositional: they can be expressed as true-or-false declarative sentences.
• Perspective on beliefs and reasoning: the aim is not merely to express opinions but to evaluate thinking with rational standards to reach correct conclusions.

Objective vs Subjective Claims

• Objective claim: true or false independently of anyone’s beliefs or thinking. Examples:
  • “There is life on Mars.”
  • “Portland, Oregon, is closer to the North Pole than to the equator.”
  • “God exists.”
  • “More stamp collectors live in Portland, Oregon, than in Portland, Maine” (truth-value unknown to us now, but it is still an objective claim when stated as a proposition).
• Subjective judgment: truth depends on what someone thinks. Example:
  • “Bruno Mars has swag.” The truth of this depends on whether someone thinks Bruno Mars has swag.
• Mixed sentences: many statements contain both objective and subjective elements:
  • Example: “Somebody stole our nifty concrete lawn duck.” In this sentence, whether the lawn duck is concrete and whether it is our lawn duck are objective questions; whether it was stolen is also objective; whether it is “nifty” is subjective.
• Important nuance: a subjective judgment cannot be mistaken in the sense that its truth value depends on the thinker’s beliefs; it cannot be supported by evidence in the same way as objective claims.
• Consequences for reasoning:
  • If a subjective judgment is true for someone, it cannot be mistaken in that person’s view.
  • Subjective judgments are not generally probabilistic and cannot be supported by evidence in the same way as objective claims.
  • It can still be useful to ask someone to explain why they think something is the case; reasons explain the causes of the belief but do not necessarily constitute objective evidence of truth.
• Caution: the lack of mecahnisms for probabilistic support does not mean we should dismiss subjective judgments out of hand; reasons behind subjective judgments can illuminate perspectives and may adjust our own views.
• Examples and implications:
  • If Parker says a tomato tastes great, and nobody else agrees, his claim is not about probability; it reflects his taste.
  • Providing reasons like “it isn’t bitter” explains why he thinks it tastes great but does not prove it (subjective taste).
  • Even for objective questions (e.g., life on Proxima Centauri), some questions exceed current evidence; lack of evidence does not imply falsity or certainty.
• Connections to practice:
  • The goal is to avoid dismissing statements merely as subjective; exploring reasons can still be productive and informative.
  • In legal and ethical contexts, subjective judgments (e.g., moral intuitions) can motivate inquiry and dialogue even if they are not themselves evidence-bearing claims.
• Notable examples and caveats from discussion:
  • “Is the case before the Supreme Court analogous to the precedent cited by the Solicitor General?” can be debated; it’s not merely subjective to discuss these questions, though judgments about them may be subjective.
  • A few claims might be considered nonsensical (e.g., “weirdness is fattening”). These are extreme cases, not a general rule to dismiss all subjective claims.

Facts, Opinions, and Their Interplay

• Fact vs Opinion: people often discuss differences, sometimes treating all opinions as subjective judgments. In this book, “opinion” is treated as another word for “belief.”
• Objective opinions (factual opinions): opinions whose truth is independent of whether anyone thinks they are true.
• A factual opinion/belief/claim = an objective opinion/belief/claim.
• Examples and clarifications:
  • “Portland, Oregon, is closer to the North Pole than to the equator” is a factual (objective) claim; its truth is not dependent on belief.
  • “Portland, Oregon, is closer to the equator than to the North Pole” is an objective claim that is false.
  • “Bruno Mars has swag” is not objective; it depends on whether someone thinks he has swag.
• Thinking about thinking: objective statements are not made true by someone thinking they are true. The belief or assertion’s truth is independent of belief.
• Relativism overview:
  • Relativism: truth is relative to cultural standards; no single God’s-eye view across cultures.
  • A culture’s belief cannot make an objective statement true simply by virtue of that culture’s thinking it is true.
  • Example: if a culture universally believes “water” is not H2O, either the people are mistaken or their word does not refer to water. This challenges the notion that truth can be made true by cultural consensus alone.

Moral Judgments and Normative Theories

• Moral Subjectivism: moral opinions (e.g., “Bullfighting is morally wrong”) are subjective judgments. If you think bullfighting is morally wrong, it is morally wrong for you, regardless of universal truth values.
• Hamlet’s dictum: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” This is a famous warning about moral subjectivism.
• Cautions about Hamlet’s claim:
  • It should be treated skeptically; just because someone believes something does not make it permissible to impose harm or justify harmful actions (e.g., torturing donkeys or stoning women to death for adultery).
  • Moral judgments cannot be made true simply by thinking they are true; some ideas cannot be justified by belief, and moral claims can be rejected even if many believe them to be true.
• Practical stance:
  • Do not use the belief-status of a moral claim to dismiss the claim from discussion; reasonable scrutiny of moral judgments is necessary.
• Implications for ethical reasoning:
  • Even when moral judgments are subjective, hearing reasons for those judgments can improve one’s own moral perspective and understanding of others’ positions.

Issues and the Role of Reasoning

• Concept of an issue:
  • An issue is a question or problem that requires reasoning and evidence to settle.
  • Recognizing issues involves identifying where evidence and argument bear on a question and where gaps or ambiguities exist.
• Emphasis on critical engagement:
  • The text encourages examining reasoning, spotting deception or holes in arguments, connecting data across sources, and weighing alternatives for action with regard to stakeholders.
  • Constructing cogent arguments grounded in data, avoiding overstated conclusions, and organizing evidence in a persuasive but fair order.

Practical Implications for Critical Thinking

• How to critique reasoning effectively:
  • Identify the evidence, assess its relevance and sufficiency, and check for logical flaws or gaps.
  • Distinguish between what is supported by data versus what is a matter of belief or opinion.
  • Be mindful of contradictory, inadequate, or ambiguous information and propose what additional information would be helpful.
• Balancing data and interpretation:
  • Prioritize the strongest data set to support an argument while acknowledging limitations.
  • Present evidence in an order that strengthens the argument without including extraneous elements.
• Real-world relevance:
  • In everyday discourse, courtrooms, policy debates, and media criticism, distinguishing objective claims, subjective judgments, and the role of evidence is crucial for sound reasoning.
• Ethical and philosophical implications:
  • Understanding the limits of rational justification, recognizing the role of culture and moral reasoning, and avoiding dogmatic assertions even when strongly held beliefs are involved.

Quick Reference: Key Distinctions and Concepts

• Propositional content: beliefs, claims, judgments, and opinions are propositional and can be true or false when expressed in declarative form.
• Objective claim: truth independent of belief; may still be unknown.
• Subjective judgment: truth depends on the thinker; not amenable to probabilistic support or evidence in the same way as objective claims.
• Mixed statements: can contain both objective and subjective elements; evaluate each component accordingly.
• Moral subjectivism: moral claims reflect personal judgments; not universally true or false, depending on the thinker.
• Relativism: truth varies with cultures; cannot make an objective statement true simply by cultural consensus.
• Facts vs opinions: opinions can be true or false; objective opinions are claims whose truth value is independent of belief, while some opinions may be subjective in nature.
• Critical thinking aim: to use reasoning standards to reach correct conclusions and wise decisions, not merely to win arguments.

Connections to Prior Content and Real-World Relevance

• The material connects to broader critical thinking practices: evaluating evidence, identifying logical gaps, and balancing data with reasoning rather than relying solely on belief.
• Real-world relevance includes media literacy, legal reasoning, ethics, and public policy, where distinguishing facts, beliefs, opinions, and moral judgments is essential for productive discussion and decision-making.
• Ethical implications include recognizing when moral judgments are personal beliefs versus claims that can be reasoned about in a broader ethical framework.

Note on Citations (from the source text)

• The content presented is drawn from Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking, McGraw-Hill US Higher Ed ISE, 2020, Ebook pages 31-35.
• The book emphasizes: critiquing reasoning, differentiating objective/subjective elements, and using data to support cogent arguments.