*15/04/2025*

*PHL 104*

*Introduction to the problems of philosophy II; Critical thinking.*

Logic is a study that should help one to reason well to distinguish good arguments from bad
arguments. Reason is the instrument upon which we humans must depend wherever it is our
object to read judgement upon which we can rely. In every serious intellectual pursuit, we rely
ultimately on reason because there is no other instrument that can successfully replace it. The
study of logic supports the use of our reasoning power and helps us to make them more
dependable. In logic, we learn how to defend judgements and how to criticize the defense of
claims that we think are mistaken. Using logic will strengthen our native power, bringing our
intellectual capacity to maturing and fruitfulness. In studying logic, we deal with structure of
agreement. Logic is different from psychology. Logic is concerned with the product of
reasoning.
Logic can be formal or informal. Informal logic teaches the tools for accessing good arguments
or bad arguments.
Informal logic is that which makes use of ordinary language while formal logic uses symbols, i.e,
it is symbolic.
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning. The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria
that can be used to test argument and to sort good arguments from bad ones.
Reasoning on every subject matter is the concern of the logician. Logic is not primarily
concerned in the process of reasoning. It is primarily concerned with the product of reasoning,
i.e. the completed argument that reasoning will produce. Therefore, it is not correct to define
logic as the science of reasoning because any such science would attend chiefly to the thinking
process, such a topic will be more in the domain of psychology than logic. Nor is logic the
science of the laws of thought since there are many kinds of thought of which reasoning is one.
All reasoning is thinking, but not all thinking is reasoning.
In attending to the arguments that are the products of reasoning, the logician asks; Does the
conclusion reached in any case, follow from the premises used or assumed. It will be a mistake
to suppose that only the students of logic can reason well or correctly just as it would be wrong
to suppose that only the athletes who study physiology can run well. A person who has studied
logic is more likely to reason correctly than another with the same basic intelligence who has
never thought about the general principles involved in reasoning. This is partly because a student
of logic will acquire methods for testing the correctness of reasoning of different. Itkinds and the
more easily errors are detected, the less likely are they to be allowed to stand. The study of logic
is likely to improve the quality of one's reasoning from another reasoning; it gives one the
opportunity to practice the analysis of argument and the evaluation of arguments and also to
construct the argument of one's own.
* If it rains, then it is wet. Let P represent "it rains" and Q represent "it is wet". P→Q . It is a
conditional statement. A conditional statement is also recognized as hypothetical statement.

* If we want to say: it rains and it is wet; it is P^Q. (P lev Q), P stand for "it rains", Q stands for
"it is wet".

* If we say; Either I buy you suya or i take you to cinema; "I buy you suya" will be P, "I take you
to cinema" will be Q. PvQ. (P vel Q).

* If we say; "You will pass if and only if you work hard". It is P( →

double arrow) Q. Where P is "You will pass" and Q is "you work hard". It is called bi-
conditional.

* we have negation; ~P. "It did not rain". The negation is called Tildel.

*Forms and functions of language.*

A sentence is a unit of language that has a complete thought.
The four forms of language are;
1. Declarative sentence: It declares a statement. E.g. it rains.
2. Imperative sentence: mostly commands
3. Interrogative sentence: It asks a question.
4. Exclamatory sentence: it is used to express emotions or feelings.

We have three basic functions of language;

1. Informative or cognitive function of language; what language does here is to communicate
information. It tells us something about the world. It can come in form of argument, description
e.t.c. The information may be right, wrong, correct or incorrect. The purpose is to communicate
information. A characteristic of the informative function is that it is capable of being true or
false.
The informative use of language is used to communicate information which is meant to add to
our knowledge of the world. It can be by affirming or denying propositions. Language used to
affirm or deny propositions or to present arguments is said to be serving the informative and
cognitive function. Here we use word 'information' to include misinformation, false as well as
true propositions, correct and incorrect argument. It is used to describe the world and to reason
about the world, whether the alleged facts are important or unimportant, general or particular
does not matter. Language is being used to state or declare an opinion or a belief. Characteristic;
it is capable of being true or false, correct or incorrect.
2. Expressive or Aesthetical use of language: Language is used to express the feelings or
emotions of the speaker or the writer. Sometimes, it is also used by a speaker or writer to arouse
the same feeling or emotions in the listener or reader. Example is poetry. Examples can be found
in the works of art, poetry, painting, drawing. Not all expressive languages are poetry or works
of art, we can also express sorrow by saying "that's too bad, what a pity" and we can express
enthusiasm by saying "terrific, fantastic". While intense passion may be expressed by lovers
murmuring private words of endearment. A worshipper feeling of the mightiness of God and
wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe may express his feelings by reciting the
Lord's prayer or Allahu Akbar or Subuhanallah.
Uses of language of this kind are not intended to communicate information but to express
emotions, feelings or articles. They are neither true nor false but can be sincere or insincere.
They can be valuable or otherwise.

23/04/2025
PHL 104

*Problems of definitions in Philosophy.*

One major feature of a human being is the ability to reason. Reasoning is a subjective activity. In
order to enable human beings communicate their reason, there is a need for a medium of
expression, one of such media is ordinary language. As John Locke argues, human understanding
and communication are hindered by the use of words which do not have fixed significance. The
most common of preventing or eliminating such hindrances is by agreeing on the definition of
words, terms, concepts and expressions used in voicing our reasoning. The importance of
definition in any philosophical discourse was raised by Socrates who in most of his dialogues
written by Plato raised questions about definitions. For example, in a dialogue Euthyphro,
Socrates asked the question "what is piety?",the question is aimed at looking for an agreement on
what the word piety means. In the same vein, arguments about the nature of time started with the
question, "what is time?". The same is the case when the argument on the existence of God is
raised, a germain,the definition of God. So, in any philosophical debate, the question of
definition is essential in order to attain clarity, precision, distinction and avoid ambiguity in the
application of terms, worth, concept and expressions. In the course of finding answers to the
questions on definitions, debates are raised around three areas; A particular definition, nature of
definition and uses of definition.
Two possible ways of engaging these debates are:
1. To recognize that definitions serve a variety of functions and therefore are not of one kind at
all. In this respect, the character or future of a kind of definition is determined by the kind of
function it performs.
2. The second involves contentious philosophical idea such as essence, concept and meaning.
There are varieties of things which are object of definition, for example, boundaries between two
spatial locations are defined by the boundary commissions. A judge through it's ruling can define
the meaning of such terms like voter or citizen. A participant in a debate can define the focus of
the debate and a lexicographer can, by documenting the usage of words, define words.
It is important to note that definitions do not have the same goal, a court or judge defines for the
purpose of justice and fairness, a debater defines to guarantee clarity, while a lexicographer
defines in order to guide people in achieving accuracy. In philosophy, definitions are of a
different kind and deserve different functions. In Philosophy, it is used to solve logical,
epistemological, ethical problems etc. So, it is important that philosophers take interest in
definitions. Of the nature of definition, a definition consists of two parts; *Definien* and
*Definiendum*. A "Definiendum" is what to be defined while the "Definien" is the expression
used to define the definiendum. There are definitions of several kinds but all these kinds of
definitions are either stipulative or reportive. By stipulative, it means laying down a rule for the
us me of a word and by reportive, it means reporting on its actual use.
1. Stipulative definitions (arbitrary and restrictive).
2. Reportive definitions.

*Stipulative definitions:*
A stipulative definition is laying down a condition for using a certain word, in other words,
stipulative definition is an announcement of rule that will be followed in using a particular word
or expression. It is to be noted that under stipulative definition, there is no commitment that the
assigned meaning agrees with prior uses of the definien. In other words, a word introduced by a
stipulative definition may be one or already in common use that we want to use in a new way or
it may be a new. Therefore there are two broad types of stipulative definition; arbitrary and
restrictive.
i. Arbitrary stipulative definitions: This is a case in which we use stipulative definitions to
introduce a brand new word. This occurs when one points a word to replace a long descriptive
phrase in order to avoid using the phrase over and over again. For example, a student who is
always in the library reading is referred to as "efico", or when you want to use the phrase of
giving someone a thorough beating, is referred to as "maximum shishi". To arrive at a brand new
one, we can combine few letters from the descriptive phrase which we are replacing. E g,
someone who loves food too much can be called a "foodie" or someone who comfortably eats
hot food can be called a "mouth cool". Most newly created technical terms, abbreviations and
symbols are typical examples of words introduced for the first time by means of arbitrary
stipulative definitions. Note that, in an arbitrary stipulative definition, the question of truth or
falsity of the statement in the definition is not considered, it is just like a proposal. Although the
proposal could be silly and could be examined to ascertain whether or not it fulfils its aims or
purposes but the proposal cannot be true or false. However, an arbitrary stipulative definition
could be challenged especially when confusing and unnecessary.

*PHL 104.*
*29/04/2025*

The difference between reportive definitions and stipulative definition is that

When we use Stipulative definition in a certain way, it is a decision that we have taken.
Stipulative definition neither be true or false
But reportive definition can be true or false
*TYPES OF REPORTIVE DEFINITION*
*1. Lexical Reportive Definition:* "Lexical" means having to do with the vocabulary of a
language. Like vocabulary, it could be in science, drama, logic, e.t.c of the language. So "lexical"
has to do with the words in the language, as they are ordinarily used in that language. A lexical
Reportive definition is a report on the ordinary meaning of the word, not a meaning in any
special field but ordinary usage.
Lexical Reportive definitions are recorded in the dictionaries by lexicographers.

*2. TECHNICAL REPORTIVE DEFINITION:* This is an explanation of the report of how a

given word is used in some specific technical issues of areas in a discipline.

*3. HiSTORICAL REPORTIVE DEFINITION:* It is a report of how words are used during
some particular period in the past.

*Assignment*
* Give four arbitrary Stipulative definitions

* Give four restrictive Stipulative definitions

* Give two lexical Reportive definition

* Two Technical Reportive Definition

* Give two Historical reportive definition

NB: Do the assignment in your notebook.

*PHL 104*
*30/4/25*
*METHODS OF DEFINITION*
*1. DEFINITION BY SYNONYM:* when we offer a word that is equivalent in meaning to the
word being defined. One thing to note when defining by synonym is that, we have to select a
word that is used in the same way and in the same context as the word being defined. Also the
name "definition by synonym" is to supply a word that someone is expected to know in place of
the one he might not know.
*For example:* define=describe, concept=idea.

*2. DEFINITION BY ENUMERATION:* to enumerate is to count or name one by one. So,

definition by enumeration consists of a complete list of all the items referred to or named by the
definiendum
*For example,* if we want to define the south western states of Nigeria, the answer will be to list
all the states in the south west, one by one.

*3. DEFINITION BY EXAMPLES:*

This is when we define by mentioning examples of instances of what is being defined.

*4. OSTENSIVE DEFINITION/POINTING DEFINITION:* This means defining a word by

pointing to an object that is referred to by that word and mentioning the word.
*For example:* pointing at sports complex is a way of defining sports complex.

*5. PERSUASIVE DEFINITION:* it is defining a word with some value laden expressions
aimed at persuading or dissuading adoption of a point of view. Persuasive definitions are also
referred to as Rhetorical definitions.
*For example:* a cigarette is a substance that destroys someone's liver. this is trying to dissuade
people from taking cigarettes.

*HOW DEFINITIONS COULD BE BAD*

Examples of bad definitions are:
*1. CIRCULAR DEFINITION:* this is when a term being defined is used as part of its own
definition. This definition cannot provide any useful information. this is because, the
audience/listener already understands the meaning of the term or in many cases, what is offered
by defenien is difficult to understand.
*For example:* Education is a process of educating someone.

*2. LOADED DEFINITION:* A loaded definition is an account of an ordinary meaning of a

word but used in a biased/prejudiced manner
*For example:* Taxation is an oppressive means to collect money from the poor.

*3. NARROW DEFINITION:* This is when you include a term that is not true of the term being
defined.
*For example:* Sport means football, basketball and table tennis.

*4.TOO BROAD DEFINITION:* This is when the definien consists of terms that are not
covered by the definendum.
*For example:* A bachelor is an unmarried man with manicured nails.

*"MEANING" AS A TOOL OF CRITICAL THINKING*

The problem of meaning in philosophy is built around three major problems.
*1. THE PROBLEM OF SPECIFYING BY CRITERIA OF MEANINGFULNESS:* This is to
decide on the conditions a sentence must satisfy in order to have a meaning.

*2. SPECIFYING THE CONDITION OF SYNONYM:* This is to identify the criteria which
two words, concepts, sentences, statements e.t.c must satisfy in order to have the same meaning.

*3 SPECIFYING MEANING IN GENERAL:* That is, given that an expression has a meaning,
what is the meaning?.

*Classical theories of meaning in philosophy include:*

*1. REFERENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING:* which holds that a word is meaningful if it
stands for an object. And that two words that stands for the same objects have the Same meaning
and the meaning of the word is simply the object for which it stands for.

*2. THE IDEATIONAL THEORY OF MEANING:* This says that the meaning of a word is the
idea produced in the mind of the speaker of a language.

*3. USE THEORY OF MEANING:* It says that the meaning of a word is determined by how it
is used in a language.

*PHL 104*
*6/5/25*
*DISAGREEMENT*
In the actual human society, people do agree and disagree among themselves. The ability to
agree and disagree are necessary features or characteristics for human beings to coexist, interact,
and function well on daily basis. There may not be a successful human intercourse without
agreement and disagreement. There is a need for academic engagement of the topic
disagreement. Because, as we interact on daily basis we are bound to see issues and facts
differently thereby disagreeing with one another.

* What therefore is disagreement?

* When do we disagree?
* Is it in all cases that we have genuine disagreement?
* How do disagreement arise?
* What are the conditions for the occurrence of disagreement?
* What are the types of disagreement we have?
* How do we resolve disagreement when they occur?

These are important binding questions about the topic of disagreement, at the end of the topic,
each students should be able to answer the above questions.
The ability to agree and disagree with one another in human societies is an essential
characteristic of human existence.
The ability to agree with one another is a demonstration of our reasonableness. But we should
note that it is not in all cases that we agree, that we disagree therefore shows that we are not
completely ot perfectly reasonable. This implies that as human beings, we are neither completely
reasonable or completely unreasonable. It follows from this that if we were completely
reasonable, we would probably arrive at the same view about the same truth or statement when
presented with the same evidence. When this happens, we say that there is an agreement. On the
other hand, when we have different or opposing views as to the truth of statements, we say that
we have a disagreement.
As human beings, and by virtue of being reasonable, it is better that we present our evidence for
holding a position instead of fighting, threatening or forcing our views in others using non-
rational means. It means therefore that in our approach to disagreement, evidence to play a
pivotal role, we agree to disagree.
When people disagree about the truth of a statement, an argument follows, as each party tries to
convince the other of his or her own correctness and the other's incorrectness as to the truth of
the matter in question.
Disagreement leads to arguments among reasonable people, and the purpose of an argument is to
terminate disagreement. For a disagreement to occur, one person or party must be right, and the
second person or party must be wrong.
Another way that disagreement occurs is for both parties to be wrong about the true value of the
statement in question, although each other believes that he/she is right. It therefore follows that
in cases where both parties are right or where both parties are wrong, there is no disagreement.
In summary, concerning any statements, there are three possible situations.
1. All parties rightly or wrongly hold the same view.
2. A situation whereby the two parties hold opposing or contradictory views, in this case there is
disagreement and only arguments with sufficient evidence will bring the wrong party to see the
truth. That is, if the wrong party is not sufficiently unreasonable.
3. The situation in which, two parties "disagree" but both of them are wrong to the truth of the
matter in question. In this case, except a new element is introduced to the argument, the parties
involved will never be able to settle their disagreement rationally.

*TYPES OF DISAGREEMENT*
The classification of disagreement depends on the locus and the way resolving disagreement. In
this regard, we have 4 types of disagreement, namely:
1. Factual disagreement
2. Verbal disagreement
3. Evaluative disagreement
4. Interpretative disagreement

The essence of this classification is for students to be able to identify each of them whenever
they occur through their features or characteristics. Some of them are structurally similar but
they are not the same.

One disagreement can appear in two forms. That is, one disagreement can fall into two different
types. But once you know the features or characteristics of each of them, you would be able to
identify them as such. In what follows below, we start by examining factual disagreement.

*1. FACTUAL DISAGREEMENT:* This agreement deals with conflicts over what is the case
or over fact. In factual disagreement, the parties have different or opposing views of beliefs
about a particular fact or state of affairs in the world. There is a disagreement in beliefs caused
by the different awareness handling of information, data or fact openly available to both parties.
Two factors that lead to factual disagreement are:

A) one of the party's insufficient attention, incompetent or other deficiencies with respect to the
relevant evidence of fact about the matter at stake.

B) The disagreement may occur as a result of wrong influence from the carefully and accurately
assembled evidence.
When factual disagreement occurs, the rational way to resolve them is to go back to the fact to
check the fact because the answer to the resolution of the disagreement lies in the fact.
The fact to be consulted could be in form of artifacts, documents, objects, statistics, rules,
principles, methods, among others,
Factual disagreement are therefore resolved by appeal to the fact, made up of objective publicly
verifiable and available data.
In law, factual disagreements are resolvable by appealing to the evidence in the form of exhibits
or testimony of witnesses as well as to Statutes and precedents.

*PHL 104*
*7/5/25*
*Factual disagreement cont'd*
In literature, factual disagreements are resolved by appealing to relevant text, messages as well
as indicated persons and places.
In history, factual disagreements are resolved by referring to appropriate documents, artifacts,
places, newspapers, archives, testimonies, opinions e.t.c.
Also, in the natural and social sciences, factual disagreement can be resolved by appeal to
suitable observation, experimentation and statistical data.
The resolution of factual disagreement is made possible because it involves the use of language
to state the fact

*EXAMPLES OF FACTUAL DISAGREEMENT*

Two individuals or discussants are involved in the following discussion, dialogue or
conversation.
Note that disagreement may involve more than two individuals in any discussion of any matter
or issue.
Let us consider the following scenario.

*1.* Segun: Chinua Achebe is the author of _Things Fall Apart_

Bimbo: Segun, you're wrong, Wole Soyinka is the author of _Things Fall Apart._

This dialogue involves two individuals, Segun and Bimbo. The issue at stake is about the author
of the book _Things Fall Apart._
Segun holds that Chinua Achebe is the author of the book, while Bimbo is of the opinion that
whole Soyinka is the author of the book. Hence, the disagreement.
This disagreement is a factual disagreement because it is a disagreement on fact, and the fact if
the matter is the correct author of the book in question. The disagreement can be resolved
therefore by an appeal to the fact as recorded in appropriate documents and places, These
includes libraries, shelves, bookshops, Google.
When the appropriate documents and places have been conducted, it will be found out that Segun
is the correct out of the two discussants and the factual disagreement naturally disappears.

*2.* Bembi: Abeokuta is located in Ogun state, it is in fact the state capital.
Eniola: I agree that Abeokuta is in Ogun state but Sagamu is the capital of Ogunstate.

Bembi and Eniola agreed to Abeokuta being in Ogun state but they disagree on whether
Abeokuta or Sagamu is the capital of Ogunstate. While Bembi holds that Abeokuta is the capital
of Ogunstate, Eniola holds that Sagamu is the capital of Ogunstate state.
In other words, their disagreement is whether Abeokuta is the state capital or not. Bembi is right
while Eniola is wrong.
The disagreement can be resolved by consulting appropriate documents, asking other people,
searching online for evidence, or a visit to the two places

*3.* Okafor: there is only one Amphitheater in all Nigerian universities and it is located in
Obafemi Awolowo University.
Okonkwo: No, you're wrong, there is only one Amphitheater, and it is located in the University
of Nigeria, Nsukka.
There is a disagreement between Okafor and Okonkwo about the university where the only
Amphitheater in Nigerian universities is located. For Okafor, the location is OAU, Ile-Ife, while
Okonkwo says it is in UNN.
The disagreement can be resolved by looking for evidence through travelling to the two
universities.
*PHL 104.*
*14/05/2025.*

*Verbal disagreement.*

In verbal disagreement, there is no disagreement. The main source of verbal disagreement is

ambiguity of natural language.
What is verbal disagreement?
Can verbal disagreement be characterized as a type of disagreement? If yes, why? If no, why
not?
A verbal disagreement occurs when, unknown to the parties to the disagreement, that a particular
key word on the disagreement has more than one meaning. Each person believes that the other is
wrong, ,whereas the other is only using the same words in a sense that is different from that of
his opponent. The disagreement here is not about the description of a word, rather it concerns the
use of words. In Verbal disagreement, there is no real argument, it's just an appearance of
argument. What appears to be a disagreement can be settled by identifying the ambiguous word
that causes the disagreement and thereafter try to have a uniform understanding by specifying the
sense in which it is used in that particular discussive context, and when this is done, the seeming
disagreement disappears.
In most cases, it is discovered that both of them are right.
Examples of Verbal disagreement;
Speaker A: Bongo is too materialistic, he is always thinking of how to acquire properties, latest
dresses, fashionable cars, expensive jewelries etc.
Speaker B: You are wrong. How dare you describe Bongo who believes in God, immortality of
the soul and life after death as materialist?
In this conversation between speaker A and B, the ambiguous word that is at stake and being
given different meanings or senses is "materialistic". Speaker A means by it, "the love of
material things" while Speaker B means by it, " a philosophical position that holds that
everything in the world is ultimately material". However, both are correct in their own right.
Although, the problem is that speaker A thinks that speaker B is wrong and vice versa. As soon
as they see that they are given different meanings to the same word, the seeming disagreement
disappears.

*PHL 104.*
*15/05/2025.*

Another way in which verbal disagreement may arise is when an object or a person is known
under different aspects by the parties involved in the seeming disagreement.
E.g;
Speaker A: I love the producer of Sunday Dagboru movie, the guy is tall and handsome and his
name is Saamu Alajo.
Speaker B: You don't even know one of the most popular Nollywood actors, his name is not
Saamu Alajo, his name is Odunlade Adekola.
In this seeming disagreement, the key source of disagreement is the name of the producer of
Sunday Dagboru. The producer of Sunday Dagboru had many aspects, two of the aspects are
known to be disputants namely; Saamu Alajo, his stage name and Odunlade Adekola, his real
name. To resolve the disagreement, it is important to point out to the two disputants that the
producer of Sunday Dagboru both as 'Saamu Alajo' and 'Odunlade Adekola'.

3. Evaluative disagreement:
As the name implies or suggests, evaluative disagreement is a type of disagreement that
arises from the evaluation of something, events or state of affairs. Before this disagreement can
occur, it must be the case that the disputants in a dialogue differ in the way(s) they are evaluating
a particular phenomenon. In general terms, evaluating disagreements occur as a result of how
assessment of persons, group of persons, institution, event, policy, countries, objects, artistic
works ( such as novels, poems, paintings, dance, music and so on) are carried out. As human
beings, we place different degree of worth or value on object of assessment in relation to
different desires, interest, standards, orientations, criteria and commitment. In evaluative
disagreement, the issue in context is essentially axiological, that is, value laden; centered on
value. In this regard, this types of evaluative disagreement could be identified as follows:
i. Evaluative ethical disagreement.
ii. Evaluative aesthetic disagreement.
iii. Evaluative pragmatic disagreement.

i. Evaluative ethical disagreement: This disagreement is about ethics and ethics is concerned with
the study and evaluation of human conduct. It is about the evaluation of a moral conduct or
standard of behavior. These extends to social, political and institutional activities. It deals with
ethical concepts or terms which include good, bad, right, wrong, ought, ought not, just, unjust,
fair, unfair etc. When any of such terms or concept leads to a disagreement, we have an
evaluative ethical disagreement. The disagreement is about the evaluation of a moral standard of
behavior or level of persons, groups or institutions.
Examples of evaluative ethical disagreement.
E.g1,
Speaker A: Bobby is a bad boy, he does not open up to others and he is an introvert.
Speaker B: Bobby is a good boy, he is quiet and not obstructive.
In the above disagreement between speaker A and speaker B, the issue is about the evaluation
of Bobby's character. This is because the two speakers are disagreeing about ethical evaluation of
Bobby's behavior. They employ the concept of "good"and "bad". Each of them defines the
concept "good" in a different way. For them to resolve the disagreement, both speakers will have
to reconcile their differences over what it means for a person to be good before they can reach an
agreement on the ethical evaluation of Bobby's behavior.
E.g2,
Speaker A: The Nigerian Police is morally corrupt, they do not fight any crime; they only mount
roadblocks to extort money from innocent citizens.
Speaker B: The Nigerian Police I know is not morally corrupt; they shot one criminal in my
presence some minutes ago. They risk their lives to protect our politicians.
There is a disagreement between speaker A and speaker B. The disagreement is about the
morally standard behavior of Nigerian police, that is, whether or not they are corrupt. From
Speaker A's evaluation, Nigerian police is morally corrupt because they mount roadblocks and
extort money from innocent citizens while Speaker B's evaluation views Nigerian police as not
morally corrupt because they shot a criminal in his presence some days ago, and they also protect
Nigerian politician's. Both speakers A and B can resolve their disagreement by agreeing in what
it means to be morally corrupt. This is an evaluative ethical disagreement because what it
involves is about the assessment of the moral conduct of Nigerian police.

ii. Evaluative aesthetic disagreement: This kind of evaluative disagreement is about aesthetics.
Aesthetics deals with the appreciate of the beauty of an artwork. It is about the appraisal,
appreciation and evaluation of the beauty of the works of art. Evaluative aesthetic disagreement
therefore concerns with the evaluation or appreciation of works of art, designs and artifacts. It
deals with terms or concepts such as beautiful, lovely, ugly, fine, interesting, pleasant,
melodious, bright, dull, tasty, sweet etc.
Examples:
E.g1,
Bongo: Micheal Jackson's music is fantastic and thought-provoking.
Buhamanger: I disagree with you, his music is awful, the tempo is too high for my liking.
In the above dialogue between Bongo and Buhamanger, there is a disagreement about the
beauty of Micheal Jackson's music. While one consider it to be beautiful, using such words as
"fantastic" and "thought-provoking", the other considers it awful because of its high tempo. Each
of them has a different aesthetic taste and to resolve the disagreement, they will ha e to resolve
their aesthetic differences.
E.g2,
Bongo: Ada's dress is beautiful; I wish to have such a dress.
Buhamanger: I don't agree with you that Ada's dress is beautiful. It has too many shiny colors,
too flamboyant and immature.
This is another example of evaluative aesthetic disagreement. It is about the aesthetic evaluation
of Ada's dress, that is, whether it is beautiful or not. The two disputants, Bongo and Buhamanger
have two different aesthetic taste. Hence, they disagree whether Ada's dress is beautiful or
otherwise. When two or more disputants in a disagreement have different aesthetic taste, sense or
standard, they will likely continue to disagree on aesthetic evaluation.
iii. Evaluative pragmatic disagreement: This disagreement is about prgamatism. Pragmatism
deals with how a theory or something works. It is about a way of thinking, concerned with what
produces practical results or consequences. This is the kind of evaluative disagreement that deals
with evaluation of a thing, a person, institution, policy, among others. The evaluation is always
about any of these items or phenomena is serving its purpose well, or performing a role as it
ought to. It pertain to the degree or extent to which a person or thing does or cannot do
something or serve a purpose. In pragmatic evaluation, terms or concepts such as the following
are employed; Satisfactory, qualified, significant, effective, acceptable, competent, desirable,
important etc.
E.g1,
Bongo: President Buhari's war against corruption is very important for the survival of Nigeria as
a nation. It will go a long way of exposing looters of yesteryears.
Buhamanger: President Buhari's war against corruption is of no importance or relevance to the
survival of the nation. It is an unnecessary diversion, which will only serve as cover-up for
today's looters in his administration.
In this dialogue, there is a disagreement between Bongo and Buhamanger about the evaluation
of the importance or otherwise of President Buhari's war against corruption. Bongo sees it as
important or effective while Buhamanger sees it as unimportant and ineffective. Hence, the
disagreement is an evaluative pragmatic disagreement.
E.g2,
Tunde: Capital punishment is important and necessary considering the rate of kidnapping and
other criminal activities in our country. It will definitely serve as a deterrence.
Bola: No, Capital punishment is unimportant and unnecessary to curb criminality. It will lead to
the killing of innocent citizens and it does not deter a criminal.
Tunde and Bola are disagreeing on the importance and usefulness of capital punishment in
curbing criminality. It is a disagreement that concerns about the evaluation of the effectiveness
of a particular measure (capital punishment) in addressing a social problem (criminality).
It is important to note that the resolution of an evaluative disagreement comes from the
disputants' mutual acceptance of the same point of view or standard of evaluative but it is
sometimes the case that evaluative disagreement may not be settled by appeal to a standard of
evaluation but to facts. This point to the fact that in some arguments, the disputants may agree on
the fact and yet disagree about the conclusion.
This is one of the features of evaluative disagreement, which is that, in some arguments, the
facts do not provide logical compulsion for accepting the claim or a conclusion.