Logic & Critical

Thinking
“Subjectivism is Pointless”
Introduction:

The article assigned to us “Subjectivism is Pointless” by Michael J. Raven tries to

address the dispute between subjectivism and objectivism in a new manner. His main
objective is to resolve the dispute in such a way that avoids the usual problems of previous
attempts at resolution such as disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists on how to
resolve their dispute and generalizing the solution to the problem inappropriately. Over the
course of the article, the author introduces his new solution to resolve the dispute (by
concluding that subjectivism is pointless) and goes on to explain how it can be refuted neither
by subjectivists nor by objectivists, and how the conclusion is applicable to the variants of
subjectivism.

There is only 1 main argument in this article which has 3 main sub-arguments which
are further made up of other sub-arguments. Through the main argument diagram (on the
following page) our aim is to give the reader clarity regarding the logical flow and structure
of the main argument. Visiting the argument diagram when going over the standardized
version will also help in increasing the understandability of the standardized version.
7
 11 52 53

54
63
59 66 84

56 85
74

86
87
75
C
Standardized Version:

When reading the standardized version, please take note of the following items; each
sub-conclusion is followed in a pair of brackets with the claim #(s) of its premises. When a
comma ‘,’ is used it signifies independent separate premises that lead to the sub-conclusion.
The use of a ‘+’ sign and underlining signifies that the claims are linked premises. Also, in
some places, a conclusion may not directly follow a certain premise in numerical sequence if
there are other independent claims that lead to the same conclusion as well. Furthermore, the
use of {} around a claim means that it is an implied premise i.e. a premise not directly stated
by the author but is left implied and is necessary for the argument to make sense logically.

1) A tool’s effectiveness is dependent on how well it is made or maintained.

2) A tool’s effectiveness is dependent on the skill of the wielder.
3) A tool’s effectiveness is dependent on who is evaluating its effectiveness.
4) Therefore, a tool can be more or less effective in achieving its use/purpose. (from
1,2,3)
5) Utility or usefulness is best understood by analogy with tools.
6) Therefore, a tool is something that has a use/purpose and its usefulness can be
evaluated in terms of its effectiveness. (from 5)
7) A tool’s usefulness is proportional to how effectively it advances its purpose or fulfils
its use. (from 4+6)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument. This is because the argument is based on the usage of
an analogy, which is a common pattern of inductive reasoning, and the indicator word
test also applies as the word ‘can’ implies that the conclusion does not necessarily
follow.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong considering that if 4 & 6 are true, it is probable that 7 will
follow. We cannot comment on the cogency, because we cannot determine if 5 is true,
and since 6 follows from 5, we cannot determine if 6 is true.
*End of Sub-Argument*
8) Treating subjectivism as a tool prevents it from being evaluated in terms of objective
epistemic virtues.
9) Subjectivism rejects objective epistemic virtues.
10) Treating subjectivism as a tool encourages evaluating it in terms of its usefulness.
11) Therefore, subjectivism should be treated as a tool. (from 8+9, 10)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because given that the premises are true, the conclusion will
invariably follow. The soundness of the argument cannot be judged, because although
9 is true by definition, we cannot be sure of the truth value of 8 and 10 due to the
abstract nature of the topic.
*End of Sub-Argument*

12) Subjectivism allows for “coups” that refute the subjugator’s claims that their
epistemic virtues are objectively more valid than those of the subjugated.
13) Therefore, one intended purpose of subjectivism is to prevent the use of objective
epistemic virtues to subjugate others. (from 12)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because given that the premises are true, the conclusion will
invariably follow. The soundness of the argument cannot be judged, because we
cannot be sure of the truth value of 12 due to the abstract nature of the topic, even
though the author assumes that it is true (or at least is deemed true among the
academics).

*End of Sub-
Argument*

14) The value of a coup derives from the usefulness of the purpose behind the coup.
15) “Principled” coups have a useful purpose.
16) Therefore, principle coups are valuable. (from 14+15)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid for the same reason as discussed earlier. The soundness of the
argument cannot be judged, because we cannot be sure of the truth value of 14 and 15
due to the abstract nature of the topic.

*End of Sub-Argument*

17) “Pathological coups do not have a useful purpose.

18) Therefore, pathological coups are not valuable. (from 14+17)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid while soundness cannot be judged, for the same reasons.
*End of Sub-Argument*

19) {The value of the coup is directly proportional with its usefulness}.
20) Therefore, subjectivism is useful if it supports a principle coup instead of a
pathological coup. (from 16+18+19)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid while soundness cannot be judged, for the same reasons.

*End of Sub-Argument*

21) Fact relativism is a variant (sub-group) of subjectivism.

22) Fact relativism denies that there any absolute facts of the matter.
23) Therefore, for subjectivists, there are no absolute facts of the matter related to the
purpose of the coup. (from 21+22)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is an inductive argument because it follows a common pattern of inductive
reasoning i.e. argument by analogy.
 A (subjectivism) is similar (in the sense that both reject objectivity) to B (fact
relativism).
 B has property P (denying that there’s an absolute fact of the matter).
 Therefore, A has property P.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong because the similarity is relevant to the property in question,
therefore given that the premises are true, it is probable that the conclusion will
follow. The argument is cogent because 21 is true (common knowledge), and 22 is
true by definition.

* End of Sub-Argument*

24) {If we do not have absolute facts of the matter related to the coup’s purpose, we
cannot be sure that the coup’s purpose provides for a principled or pathological
coup}.
25) Epistemic relativism is a variant of subjectivism.
26) Epistemic relativism denies that there are any absolute facts of the matter as to
whether the evidence supports the allegations behind the coup.

*End of Sub-Argument*

27) {If we do not have absolute facts of the matter as to whether the evidence supports the
allegations behind the coup, we cannot be sure that the allegations provide for a
principled or pathological coup}
28) Subjectivists believe in explanatory relativism.
29) Explanatory relativism denies that the evidence alone causes our beliefs, i.e it claims
that there are non-evidential causes as well.
30) If the evidential causes cannot be differentiated from the non-evidential causes, then,
for subjectivists, principled coups cannot be differentiated from pathological coups.
(from 28+29)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is both valid because given that the premises are true, the conclusion
will invariably follow. It is also sound because 28 is a well-known fact therefore true,
and 29 is true by definition/

31) Subjectivists cannot differentiate between evidential and non-evidential causes. (from
26)
32) Therefore, subjectivists cannot differentiate between principled or pathological coups.
(from 30+31)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument. This is because it follows a common pattern of
deductive reasoning. It is Modus Ponens, a form of a hypothetical syllogism.
 If A (the evidential causes cannot be differentiated from the non-evidential
causes), then B (principles coups cannot be differentiated from pathological
coups)
 A
 Therefore, B.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true, and the pattern of reasoning is a reliable one. We cannot comment
on the soundness due to the abstract nature of the topic.

* End of Sub-Argument*

33) {If subjectivists use objectivity, only then can they distinguish between principled and
pathological coups}
34) Therefore, subjectivists cannot distinguish between principled and pathological coups,
without invoking objectivity. (from 23+24+33, 26+27+33, 32+33)
35) {If one cannot distinguish between principled and pathological coups, the coup cannot
support a principled coup instead of a pathological coup)
36) Therefore, subjectivism fails in preventing the use of objective epistemic virtues to
subjugate others, without invoking objectivity. (from 20+34+35)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true. We cannot comment on the soundness due to the abstract nature of
the topic.

*End of Sub-Argument*

37) Another intended purpose of subjectivism is to compare different genealogies of

various social & science concepts.
38) Subjectivism cannot determine which genealogy is more useful or better supported by
evidence.
39) Therefore, subjectivism cannot recommend one genealogy over another. (from 38)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true. This is also a
chain argument.
 If A () then B ().
 If B, then C ().
 A, therefore C.

Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:

The argument is valid because the conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true, and the pattern of reasoning is a reliable one. We cannot comment
on the soundness because the truth value of 38 cannot be judged given the abstract
nature of the topic. 37, although, is a widely accepted fact therefore true.

* End of Sub-Argument*

40) Another intended purpose of subjectivism is to explain how two groups can disagree
while both still being deserving of respect.
41) Subjectivism cannot determine whether that disagreement is about the facts or what
the evidence supports.
42) Therefore, subjectivism cannot determine whether there even is any genuine
disagreement, let alone try making any sense of it. (from 41)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.

Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:

The argument is valid because the conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true. We cannot comment on the soundness because the truth value of 41
cannot be determined due to the nature of the topic, although 40, being a widely
accepted fact, is true.

* End of Sub-Argument*

43) Another intended purpose of subjectivism is to protect against abuses of objectivity.

44) Subjectivism rejects the premises of oppression (at the hands of objectivity) as false
or irrational.
45) Therefore, subjectivism rejects the simplest way of recognizing and thereby
condemning acts of oppression. (from 44)
46) Therefore, subjectivism fails to protect against abuses of objectivity. (from 45)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.

Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:

The argument is valid because the conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true. We cannot comment on the soundness because the truth value of 45
cannot be determined due to the nature of the topic.

* End of Sub-Argument*

47) Another intended purpose of subjectivism is to increase tolerance of various non-

harmful beliefs.
48) False beliefs can only be identified with a certain degree of objectivity.
49) Therefore, subjectivism ends up tolerating harmful false beliefs. (from 48+9)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is a deductive argument because it follows a common pattern i.e. Modus Ponens.
 If A (we cannot invoke a certain degree of objectivity), then B (we cannot
identify false beliefs)
 A
 Therefore, B.

Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:

The argument is valid because conclusion will invariably follow given that the
premises are true, and the argument follows a reliable common pattern of reasoning
i.e. Modus Ponens. The argument is also sound, because 47 is a widely accepted fact,
and 48 is true by definition considering that a belief can be deemed false if and only if
there is some degree of objectivity involved.

50) {Tolerating harmful false beliefs defeats subjectivism’s intended purpose}.

51) Therefore, subjectivism fails in its purpose of tolerating beliefs. (from 49+50)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion invariably follows given that the
premises are true. Subjectivism aims to give equal validity to all groups with all their
different beliefs, thereby not put any group at a disadvantage; to achieve the stated
aim, it aims at tolerating all beliefs. However, while it tolerates all beliefs, it ends up
tolerating harmful false beliefs as well, which in effect indefinitely put one group or
the other at a disadvantage.

* End of Sub-Argument*

52) Therefore, subjectivism fails its intended purposes, without invoking objectivity. (
13+36, 37+39, 40+42, 43+46, 47+51)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument, because given that the premises are true, the
conclusion does not follow by strict logical necessity. In the article the author says,
“While I have not surveyed all the possible points subjectivism might serve, I have
considered the most common”. This implies that there might be some intended
 purpose of subjectivism that it in fact does successfully deliver (one that has not been
discussed in the argument).
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong considering that if the premises that lead are true, it is
probable that 52 will follow. We cannot comment on the cogency, because we cannot
determine that all the given premises are true.

*End of Sub-Argument*

53) Subjectivism does not believe in objectivity. (from 9)

54) Therefore, subjectivism lacks usefulness. (from 7+11+52+52)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion invariably follows given that the
premises are true. However we cannot be sure of the cogency of the argument because
it follows from 52, which has premises of it own and we have already established that
we are not sure of the premises being true.

*End of Sub-Argument*

55) Objectivists can explain disagreements in equally good or better ways than
subjectivists.
56) Therefore, objectivism performs the purpose of explaining disagreement between two
groups better than subjectivism. (40+55)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion invariably follows given that the
premises are true. We cannot comment on the cogency, because we cannot determine
that all the given premises are true.
 * End of Sub-Argument*

57) Objectivism easily accommodates the premises of oppression as true or rational.

58) Therefore, objectivism can easily recognize and condemn acts of oppression. (from
57)
59) Therefore, objectivism can serve the purpose of protecting against the abuses of
objectivity better than subjectivism. (43+58+45)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because the argument follows strict logical necessity.
The conclusion does necessarily follow, given that the premises are true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because the conclusion invariably follows given that the
premises are true. The argument is also cogent, considering the premises are true.

* End of Sub-Argument*

60) Subjectivism cannot regard our claims as true or supported by evidence. (from 22+26)
61) Therefore, subjectivism cannot justify our confidence in our claims. (from 60)
62) Objectivism allows the possibility of regarding our claims as true or supported by
evidence.
63) Therefore, objectivism can justify our confidence in our claims more influentially
than subjectivism. (from 61+62)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument because the argument does not follow strict logical
necessity. The conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that the premises are
true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong because it is probable that 63 will follow if the premises are
true, because if A is incapable of doing what B is potentially capable of doing, then B
is potentially better at it than A. The argument’s cogency cannot be commented on
because although 60 is true by definition of ‘subjectivism’ and 62 is true by definition
of ‘objectivism,’ we cannot determine the truth value of 61 due to the abstract,
debatable nature of the claim.
 * End of Sub-Argument*

64) Objectivism can identify false beliefs.

65) Therefore, objectivism can prevent the toleration of harmful false beliefs. (from 64)
66) Therefore, objectivism performs the purpose of increasing tolerance of various beliefs
better than subjectivism. (from 47+49+50+65)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument because the argument does not follow strict logical
necessity. The conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that the premises are
true. And principle of charity shows that the author’s intent was to imply an inductive
argument.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong because it is probable that 66 will follow if the premises are
true, because objectivism can identify and therefore prevent false beliefs, while in all
likelihood subjectivism cannot even begin to identify false beliefs as false therefore it
cannot prevent them. So the conclusion, in all likelihood, will follow. It is also a
cogent argument because the premises are true.

* End of Sub-Argument*

67) Objectivism says that there are absolute facts related to various matters.
68) Therefore, for objectivists, there are absolute facts related to a coup’s purpose. (from
67)
69) Objectivism states that there are absolute facts of the matter as to whether the
evidence supports a certain belief.
70) Objectivism allows for the causes of the allegations to be traced evidentially.
71) Therefore, objectivists have the ability to compare evidential and non-evidential
causes. (from 70)
72) Therefore, objectivists can distinguish between principled and pathological coups.
(from 24+68, 27+69, 30+71)
73) Therefore, the coup does not fail its purpose. (from 35+72)
74) Therefore, objectivism serves the purpose of preventing subjugation at the hands of
objective epistemic virtues better than subjectivism. (from 36+73)
Deductive or Inductive:
 This is an inductive argument because the argument does not follow strict logical
necessity. The conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that the premises are
true. And principle of charity shows that the author’s intent was to imply an inductive
argument.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong because if the premises are true it is probable that the
conclusion will follow. The cogency of the argument cannot be commented on
because although 67 and 69 are true by definition, we cannot determine the truth
value of the other premises due to the abstract nature of the claims

* End of Sub-Argument*

75) Therefore, the various purposes of subjectivism are served better by objectivism.
(from 56, 59, 63, 66, 74)
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument, because given that the premises are true, the
conclusion does not follow by strict logical necessity. In the article the author says,
“While I have not surveyed all the possible points subjectivism might serve, I have
considered the most common”. This implies that there might be some intended
purpose of subjectivism that it in fact does fulfill better than objectivism does (one
that has not been discussed in the argument)
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is very strong because given that the premises - well established
through a series of further premises - are true, it is highly probably that the conclusion
will follow. The cogency of the argument cannot be commented on, because the
premises are themselves conclusions of inductive arguments therefore matters of
‘probability,’ the truth value of whom cannot be determined.

* End of Sub-Argument*

76) The rhetorical problem occurs when objectivists and subjectivists do not merely
disagree over objectivity, but they also disagree on how to solve their disagreement.
77) For subjectivists, the source of relativistic ideas is relevant to the rhetorical
effectiveness of arguments that are aimed at disproving it.
78) If arguments made against subjectivism do not address the sources of relativistic
ideas, it results in the rhetorical problem. (from 77)
79) If arguments made against subjectivism are made in terms of it lacking objective
epistemic virtues this results in the rhetorical problem. (9+76)
80) This argument addresses the thought that the authority of objectivity is a mask for the
interests of power.
81) The thought that the authority of objectivity is a mask for the interests of power is an
important source of relativistic ideas.
82) Therefore, this argument does address a source of relativistic ideas. (from 80+81)
83) The argument that “subjectivism lacks usefulness” does not make its conclusion on
the basis of subjectivism lacking objective epistemic virtues.
84) Therefore, this argument avoids the rhetorical problem. (78+82, 79+83)

Deductive or Inductive:
This is a deductive argument because it follows a common pattern of deductive reasoning
(denying the antecedent).
78+82:
 If A (the argument doesn’t address the sources of relativistic sources), then B
(it results in the rhetorical problem).
 Not A,
 Therefore, not B.
79+83:
 If A (the argument is made in terms of subjectivism lacking objective
epistemic virtues), then B (it results in the rhetorical problem).
 Not A,
 Therefore, not B.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is valid because given that the premises are true, the
conclusion follows by strict logical necessity. The key point here is that this
validity is established only once the pair of linked premises is looked at in
conjunction – since both the two possibilities of a rhetorical problem arising
have been denied, only then it is confirmed that the rhetorical problem does
not arise. If looked at independently, both 78+82 and 79+83 follow unreliable
patterns of reasoning, so in and of themselves they could not have produced a
 valid argument. The argument’s soundness cannot be commented on, because
we can establish the truth value of 82 and 80 from the article, we cannot do it
for the other premises due to the abstract debatable nature of the claims.

85) {If the argument avoids the rhetorical problem, objectivists and subjectivists are less
likely to disagree on its main conclusion}
86) {Another established premise of the argument posits that subjectivism is useless.}
87) {Therefore, subjectivists cannot disagree to the positing that subjectivism is useless.]
(84+85+86).
Deductive or Inductive:
This is an inductive argument because the argument does not follow by strict logical
necessity. The conclusion does not necessarily follow, given that the premises are
true.
Validity/Strength or Soundness/Cogency:
The argument is strong because it is likely for the conclusion to follow given that the
premises are true. We cannot comment on the soundness of the argument, because the
truth value of 85 cannot be determined due to the abstract and highly debatable nature
of the claim. 86, however, is true.

(Diagrams of main sub-arguments on next page)

1 5

2 3

8 9

10

11

43 46

40 42

13 47 51

52
 4 6

37 39

36

Summarization of the Argument:

53
The diagram above shows the sub-arguments that lead up to the sub-conclusions of 7,11,52
and 53. These 4 claims collectively link up as premises for the main and most important
premise #54 that “subjectivism lacks usefulness”. The other main premises are that the
“various purposes of subjectivism are served better by objectivism” (#75) and that
“subjectivists cannot disagree to the positing that subjectivism is useless” (#87). These 3
independent main premises lead up to the conclusion that “subjectivism is pointless” (#88).
Evaluation of the Argument:
The article “Subjectivism is pointless” written by Michael J. Raven aims to take a
new twist at the dispute between objectivism and subjectivism in order to resolve the dispute;
all be it in favor of objectivism. Raven claims that subjectivism itself is pointless on the main
premise that subjectivism lacks usefulness, unless it places reliance on the very ideology it
inherently rejects; objectivity.
The article starts off by giving us an introduction on the debate between subjectivism
vs objectivism. He gives us a thorough explanation of what the both terms imply in the
context of the article, and for readers who are not well-acquainted with these terms before-
hand, the introduction serves as a good foundational basis upon which he can build upon his
main argument. As the claims from the introductory section do not have any relevance
towards the conclusion, they were not included in the standardized form.
The article, by following a very structured pattern with visible sub-sections, starts of
by giving us an explanation on how other critiques of subjectivism fail to convince
subjectivists of their arguments, by defining the rhetorical problem i.e. subjectivists do not
merely disagree with objectivists over objectivity but also disagree on how to resolve their
dispute. The author claims that as these usual critiques do not focus on the sources of
relativistic conviction (which are of primary importance to subjectivists) and their
disapproval but are instead based upon objective epistemic virtues (which subjectivists
outright reject), these critiques are unlikely to persuade subjectivists. Although his whole part
is irrelevant to the final conclusion, the author goes on to show that its relation with the
author’s new critique is an important premise towards the final conclusion.
The author provides a “new solution” to resolve the dispute which is that subjectivism
should be rejected as pointless on the premise that it lacks usefulness, an epistemic virtue that
is valuable to both subjectivists and objectivists. By avoiding the use of objective epistemic
virtues and by tackling the sources of relativistic conviction (such as objectivity being the
power’s mask of authority) in his critique, the author avoids the rhetorical problem. This
results in an important and relevant claim that as the critique avoids the rhetorical problem, it
is less likely that subjectivists will reject it outright. Therefore, as this claim is relevant
towards the conclusion of subjectivism being rejected as pointless, it has been treated as a
main premise to the conclusion. (76 to 87)
Where the argument really substantiates its conclusion is in the sub-sections of “3.
New Solution” and “4. The Case Study”. The author’s main argument revolves around his
use of analogy between tools and the belief of subjectivism by making the claims that both
are similar in the sense that they have special purposes for which they were constructed, and
that their usefulness can be evaluated on the basis of how well they fulfil those purposes.
Therefore, he gives the recommendation to treat subjectivism as “tools”. The main and most
obvious problem with this analogy is that he is comparing a physical object such as a “tool”
which has inherently different purposes than an ideal of thought i.e. subjectivism. Therefore,
the comparison between tools and subjectivism may remain unconvincing to the reader which
is important as his argument is based on the analogy.
The author then goes on to show, through the analogy between subjectivism and tools,
that how subjectivism fails 1 of its intended purposes; providing a basis for supporting
“coups” to prevent the use of objectivity to subjugate others. He argues that in order to fulfil
its intended purpose, subjectivism must be able to separate the pathological coups (which
have no value) from the principled coups (which do have value). However, he argues, that
subjectivists cannot differentiate between the two without invoking the very objective
epistemic virtues they reject. Through the use of the “case study”, the author is able to very
clearly create an image in the reader’s mind of the importance of principled coups over
pathological coups. However, the argument is lacking in the aspect of literal clarity when the
author is explaining how subjectivism cannot carry out the afore-mentioned purpose by using
specific terms such as fact constructivism, epistemic relativism and explanatory relativism.
The article becomes susceptible to losing its readers, especially those who haven’t come
across these terms before. Both of these sections provide relevant premises to the claim# 36
that subjectivism fails this intended purpose.
The next section titled “generalization” is an attempt by the author to serve as a basis
to counter any refutations that can be made against it on the basis that it generalizes the
various purposes of subjectivism. In this section, the author efficiently and precisely
elaborates on other various purposes of subjectivism and not only on how subjectivism fails
those purposes, but also on how objectivism serves those purposes better. One important
thing to note is that although the author mentions both the failure of subjectivism and the
success of objectivism related to the various purposes side by side as he moves along, the
structure of our standardized argument identifies the them as separate independent premises
towards the conclusion.
One important thing to note that is worthy of thought is that the author may not have
mentioned all the purposes of subjectivism but may have instead only mentioned those
purposes on which he had substantial evidence to claim that subjectivism would fail.
However, the article on the whole provides a new twist on the old debate between
subjectivism and objectivism and is able to provide substantiated claims and premises on the
which it has made its conclusion that subjectivism is pointless