Good and Ought in Argumentation: COVID-19 as a Case Study

Abstract The present chapter concerns arguments whose conclusions take the form of a prescription such as you ought to do such-and-such , which have driven much public discussion and policy since beginning COVID-19 pandemic. We aim tackle hitherto under-explored characteristic many normative arguments, namely, relationship between evaluative deontic propositions, depending on whether they occur premises or in arguments. In order investigate how willing people are argue from what is good one do, other way round, we conducted an Inferential Judgment Experiment. Participants were presented with involving had judge could infer conclusion premise. stimuli that used tightly related argumentation surrounding pandemic, regarding measures preventing spread COVID-19. results study show there robust inferential connection evaluatives deontics, but at same time, significant asymmetry well. explore several theoretical approaches realm, test their predictions against our study.