Critical Thinking and Persuasive Reasoning: A Practical Guide - Chapter 10: Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

Introduction: The Logic of Values

Every day, we make judgments—not just about what is true, but about what is right, what is fair, what is just, and what is meaningful. These are not just casual opinions; they are value-laden decisions that reflect who we are, how we see the world, and how we believe it should work. Whether we're arguing about justice in a courtroom, debating art in a gallery, or navigating ethical choices in our personal lives, we engage in reasoning that goes beyond data. This is the realm of moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning.

These forms of reasoning help us evaluate how we should act, how society should operate, and how we interpret cultural and creative expression. They often overlap but remain distinct in purpose. Moral reasoning asks what is right and wrong based on ethical principles. Legal reasoning considers how rules, rights, and precedents apply to specific cases. Aesthetic reasoning is used to evaluate artworks and expressions of taste. It goes beyond personal opinion, drawing on criteria such as form, symbolism, emotional impact, cultural context, and technical execution. Aesthetic reasoning allows us to interpret and judge artistic or expressive work not just based on whether we like it, but based on how and why it communicates something important or meaningful.

This kind of reasoning is especially important in areas such as visual art, literature, film, performance, fashion, and public displays. For example, Pablo Picasso’s Guernica is a powerful anti-war painting that uses abstract forms and monochromatic color to evoke horror and grief. Its aesthetic impact is deeply connected to its symbolic content and historical context.

Photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe—particularly those that were part of the controversial exhibition The Perfect Moment—have prompted debate not only about art’s role in society but about censorship, sexuality, and public funding. Works like Ken Moody and Robert Sherman blend classical composition with themes of race and identity. These pieces challenge viewers to consider their own aesthetic standards and moral beliefs.

Another example involves a public art installation where an American flag is displayed on the ground. Some consider this disrespectful; others view it as a powerful critique of nationalism. Aesthetic reasoning invites people to assess its visual form, cultural references, and emotional effects before jumping to conclusions.

Even more traditional art forms, like ballet, offer space for aesthetic reasoning. Ballet performances are often evaluated based on grace, precision, expression, and rhythm. Watching a performance isn’t just about enjoyment—it’s about understanding form, effort, and emotional storytelling through movement.

Aesthetic reasoning becomes even more significant in public debates about graffiti, murals, or controversial advertising. It helps us ask: What messages are being sent? Who is the intended audience? What norms are being reinforced or questioned? The strength of aesthetic reasoning lies in its ability to foster deeper dialogue about identity, power, and creativity.

Aesthetic Principles: Criteria for Judging Art and Expression

Aesthetic reasoning isn’t “just opinion.” It relies on shared principles that help us explain why a work succeeds or fails. Different traditions emphasize different criteria, but the following recurring ideas give you a disciplined way to argue about art, design, performance, and public expression (Beardsley, 1981; Dewey, 1934; Danto, 1964; Sontag, 1966; Nussbaum, 1995).

Form and Composition. How parts are arranged into a coherent whole—through balance, contrast, emphasis, rhythm, scale, and proportion. Strong form guides attention and supports meaning; weak form distracts or muddles it (Beardsley, 1981).
Unity and Variety. Works need enough unity to feel purposeful and enough variety to avoid monotony. Many critics look for a dynamic balance—coherence without sameness (Beardsley, 1981).
Craft and Technique. The skill with which materials, tools, or bodies are used (camera movement, brushwork, choreography, vocal control, editing). Craft is not the same as beauty, but it shapes whether an idea comes through clearly (Dewey, 1934).
Expression and Emotional Intensity. What feelings the work evokes and how powerfully or precisely it does so. The aim isn’t “did I like it?” but “did the felt experience fit the work’s aims?” (Dewey, 1934; Sontag, 1966).
Meaning and Symbolism. The ideas and references a work mobilizes—its metaphors, narratives, or arguments—and whether the symbols are legible and apt without being cliché (Nussbaum, 1995).
Context and Intertextuality. Works speak within traditions, genres, and institutions. Understanding context (gallery vs. street, studio album vs. protest chant) and intertextuality (what other works it echoes or resists) is part of judging fairness and ambition (Danto, 1964).
Originality and Risk. How a work extends, unsettles, or refreshes a form—without mistaking mere shock or novelty for substance. Originality matters most when it clarifies purpose rather than obscuring it (Sontag, 1966).
Fitness of Means to Ends. Do choices of medium, scale, and style fit the work’s aims and audience? A whisper can be more persuasive than a shout if the aim is intimacy (Beardsley, 1981).
Audience Reception. What informed viewers and communities perceive, including accessibility for newcomers and depth for experts. Reception isn’t a vote count; it’s evidence for how a work functions in real contexts (Dewey, 1934).
Ethical–Aesthetic Fit. Some judgments hinge on how form and message relate to moral concerns (e.g., a beautiful image that glamorizes harm). You can critique the aesthetic and the ethic without collapsing them (Nussbaum, 1995).
Publicness and Place. In civic spaces, evaluate site-specificity (how a work fits the location), civic impact (whose stories are centered), and durability (materials, maintenance). Public art answers to a broader public than gallery work (Danto, 1964).
Clarity vs. Ambiguity. Not all work should be obvious; sometimes productive ambiguity invites interpretation. The key question is whether the level of ambiguity serves the purpose or merely confuses (Sontag, 1966).
Genre Conventions. Each form (ballet, graffiti, memoir, horror film) carries expectations. Judging a work fairly means recognizing what it’s trying to be before evaluating how well it succeeds by those standards (Danto, 1964).
Intent and Impact. Artist intent gives helpful context, but impact—what audiences actually perceive—matters for evaluation, especially in public or pedagogical settings. Use both when available and be explicit about which you privilege.
Limits of Aesthetic Claims. Finally, aesthetic claims are defeasible: open to revision with new context, better comparisons, or closer looking. Good critics show their criteria, evidence, and counter-readings.

Using the Principles in Practice. When you write or speak about a work, (1) describe what is there (not your reaction yet), (2) analyze how form, technique, and context operate, (3) interpret meaning and effect, and (4) judge using explicit principles tied to the work’s aims and audience. This mirrors widely taught methods of criticism and keeps evaluation transparent (Dewey, 1934; Sontag, 1966).

Intersecting Frameworks: Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

Some of the most complex and consequential decisions we face as citizens, students, and members of communities require more than just one kind of reasoning. While earlier chapters have treated moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning as distinct modes of evaluation, real-world controversies often demand that we draw from all three at once. These frameworks rarely operate in isolation. Instead, they overlap, reinforce, or even conflict with each other, depending on the values, contexts, and goals involved. Recognizing how these types of reasoning interact is a vital part of critical thinking—especially when tackling issues that involve public controversy, social change, or community values.

Take, for example, a protest mural painted without permission on a government building. Viewed morally, the mural might represent a cry for justice—a powerful expression of collective resistance or solidarity in the face of harm. From this standpoint, the mural is more than paint on a wall; it’s a public assertion of rights, grief, and resistance. From a legal perspective, however, the mural may raise questions about public property, vandalism, or the limits of protected speech. Even if the intent behind the mural is noble, the law may treat the act as a violation of municipal codes or historic preservation rules. Finally, from an aesthetic point of view, the mural might be seen as either a compelling piece of visual communication or an eyesore that disrupts the visual harmony of the space. These responses can differ dramatically depending on a viewer’s cultural background, artistic values, or relationship to the space itself.

Now imagine trying to resolve this conflict—should the mural be preserved, removed, or sanctioned? The answer depends on which reasoning framework one privileges. A moralist might argue that the mural should remain as a reminder of injustice. A legalist might insist that procedure must be followed, regardless of the message. An artist or cultural critic might ask whether the work serves or harms the community’s identity. The key insight here is not to choose one framework and ignore the rest, but to engage in layered reasoning, where multiple forms of justification are evaluated simultaneously.

School-based conflicts, such as those involving dress codes, similarly demand cross-framework reasoning. If a student wears clothing that signals a political or cultural identity—say, a Black Lives Matter hoodie or a hijab—school officials may have to weigh legal concerns about disruption and school policy, aesthetic expectations around dress and decorum, and moral commitments to inclusivity and free expression. Focusing on only one form of reasoning can lead to biased or overly narrow decisions. For example, viewing the issue purely through a disciplinary lens might miss the symbolic significance of the clothing, while treating it only as an expressive act might overlook the school’s obligation to maintain a safe and distraction-free environment.

Public monuments provide another common example of these overlapping frameworks. Calls to remove statues of Confederate generals or colonizers often stem from moral reasoning—that continuing to honor these figures is a symbolic endorsement of white supremacy, colonialism, or slavery. But legal reasoning quickly enters the discussion: Who has the right to remove the statue? What does due process require? Is there a historical designation protecting the structure? Meanwhile, aesthetic reasoning shapes public opinion as well: Some view these statues as valuable art or integral to the landscape, while others see them as daily reminders of violence and oppression. When these viewpoints collide, progress often stalls unless participants can name and navigate the frameworks that shape their thinking.

This ability to identify and differentiate frameworks is especially important in polarized debates, where people often talk past one another because they are using different reasoning systems. For instance, one speaker may argue that something is morally wrong, while another insists that it is legally permissible. Rather than directly contradicting each other, these two positions may simply be reasoning from different premises. A third person might join the conversation to say that the issue is “ugly” or “in poor taste”—introducing aesthetic reasoning into the discussion. Unless all parties recognize that they are operating on different wavelengths, the debate is likely to escalate into frustration or deadlock.

What makes this challenge even more interesting—and more urgent—is that these frameworks often conflict within a single person. You may find yourself thinking, “This seems unfair, but it is technically allowed,” or “I think this is wrong, but I also see why it’s beautiful,” or “This art is powerful, but I’m not sure it belongs on public property.” These inner conflicts reflect the richness of our evaluative lives. Learning to name these tensions is a strength, not a weakness. Rather than choosing one form of reasoning and ignoring the others, strong critical thinkers learn to hold multiple frameworks in tension—to ask what is legal, what is moral, and what is aesthetic, and to recognize when one framework may override or qualify the others.

In fact, some of the most effective and thoughtful advocacy arises when people can translate between frameworks. A student fighting for free expression might use moral language to articulate their values, but also learn legal reasoning to support their right to wear expressive clothing, and even use aesthetic arguments to frame their self-expression as a form of identity or cultural heritage. Likewise, a city planning commission reviewing a controversial sculpture might consider whether it violates any ordinances, whether it promotes civic cohesion or division, and whether it contributes to the cultural vibrancy of the space. Good judgment involves balancing these modes—never allowing one to dominate without thoughtful justification.

As a critical thinker, your goal is not to memorize which reasoning system is best. Your goal is to recognize which one is being used, consider what others are available, and evaluate how they work together or come into conflict. When you read an article, write a position paper, or speak up in class, ask yourself: What kind of reasoning am I using here? Could I strengthen my argument by acknowledging another framework? Could I better understand an opposing view by seeing what kind of reasoning it relies on?

In a pluralistic society, disagreement is inevitable. But when we know what kind of reasoning we’re using—and can name the kind used by others—we move from conflict to conversation. We move from speaking past each other to listening across frameworks. And we move closer to the kind of public discourse that is not only more effective, but more ethical.

Moral Reasoning Frameworks: How We Decide What’s Right

To engage more deeply in moral reasoning, it helps to understand the major ethical frameworks that shape how people think about right and wrong. These aren’t just abstract theories—they show up in everyday arguments, policies, and personal decisions.

One widely used approach is consequentialism, which judges an action based on its outcomes. If the result helps more people or reduces harm, it’s considered morally right. For example, someone using consequentialist reasoning might support public health mandates that inconvenience a few people but protect many others.

A second approach is deontology, which emphasizes duty, rules, or moral principles. In this view, some actions are always wrong—like lying or stealing—no matter the outcome. Deontological reasoning is often used in debates about human rights, medical ethics, and legal justice.

Virtue ethics shifts the focus from actions to character. Instead of asking, “What should I do?” it asks, “What kind of person should I be?” It evaluates choices based on whether they reflect traits like honesty, courage, or kindness.

Care ethics, on the other hand, highlights the importance of empathy, emotional connection, and relationships. This framework is common in education, healthcare, and social work—where decisions depend not just on rules or consequences, but on how people are treated and cared for.

Each framework can lead to different conclusions, especially in complex situations. But learning to recognize and name them helps you engage with moral issues more clearly—and have deeper, more respectful conversations across lines of disagreement.

Everyday Applications: Reasoning in Real Life

Although moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning are often discussed in the context of formal debates, courtrooms, or philosophical writing, the truth is we use them constantly—sometimes without even realizing it. Value-based reasoning is woven into the fabric of daily decision-making. Whether we're choosing how to respond to a friend, deciding whether to repost a social media graphic, or debating a workplace policy, we are almost always drawing on some combination of moral, legal, and aesthetic values to shape our thinking. The more aware we become of these patterns, the more skilled we become at communicating clearly, acting with intention, and making decisions that reflect both reason and empathy.

When we ask ourselves, “What’s the right thing to do?” We are engaging in moral reasoning. This might arise when we choose to confront a peer who made a harmful joke, when we decide whether to donate to a cause, or when we reflect on how to treat someone who has wronged us. These aren’t abstract ethical puzzles; they are real-life moments that require us to weigh harm, fairness, compassion, and responsibility.

When we wonder, “Is this allowed?” we are practicing legal reasoning—even if we’re not quoting statutes. Signing a lease, interpreting a school’s dress code, or negotiating workplace expectations all require us to navigate systems of rules and authority. Legal reasoning helps us determine not just what we think should happen, but what is permitted within a given structure. It also teaches us to advocate for ourselves and others more effectively by understanding rights, responsibilities, and institutional limits.

When we think, “Does this feel appropriate?” or “Is this beautiful, expressive, or in poor taste?” we’re engaging in aesthetic reasoning. Aesthetic judgment is about interpretation, style, symbolism, and personal or cultural meaning. It shapes how we respond to a film, what we wear to a wedding, how we decorate our homes, and even how we frame our opinions in conversation. Although often dismissed as “just opinion,” aesthetic reasoning is a deeply important and culturally powerful way of understanding the world.

These types of reasoning often converge. Consider the decision of whether or not to support a particular clothing brand. A consumer might engage in moral reasoning by researching the company’s labor practices or environmental impact. They might apply legal reasoning to determine if the company has been fined or sanctioned for violations. And they might use aesthetic reasoning to decide if the brand’s style matches their identity or values. The final decision to buy—or boycott—is shaped by the interplay of all three.

Social media offers another rich site for everyday value-based reasoning. Imagine encountering a viral tweet that uses humor to critique a political issue. To decide whether to retweet, comment, or ignore it, you may ask: Is the post morally fair, or does it mock or misrepresent others? Is it legally protected speech, or does it violate platform rules or harassment policies? Is it aesthetically effective—that is, does its tone, imagery, or wordplay make the message more powerful or more problematic? Whether we recognize it or not, these are reasoning frameworks that guide our actions.

In shared spaces—such as schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, or online communities—value-based reasoning becomes a cornerstone of collaborative decision-making. Should a school allow students to paint a mural on campus walls? Moral reasoning might focus on what the mural expresses and whether it reflects shared values or experiences of injustice. Legal reasoning would consider school policy, parental rights, or district guidelines. Aesthetic reasoning might involve whether the mural aligns with the school's tone or visual identity. Only by integrating these perspectives can schools arrive at a decision that balances freedom, structure, and identity.

Neighborhood disputes also reflect the same complexity. Consider a homeowner who wants to display a political sign or religious symbol in their front yard. Some neighbors may object, arguing it is divisive or inappropriate. Resolving the issue might involve legal reasoning (zoning laws or HOA agreements), moral reasoning (the right to self-expression or protest), and aesthetic reasoning (how the display affects the look or unity of the block). Without acknowledging all three, communities risk oversimplifying deeply held concerns.

Practicing these types of reasoning not only improves our ability to argue a point or win a debate—it helps us grow into more reflective, empathetic, and responsible individuals. By tuning in to the kind of reasoning others are using, we become better listeners. By recognizing how our own values influence our judgments, we become more thoughtful communicators. And by navigating the overlap of multiple value systems, we learn to engage with complexity rather than retreat from it.

In classrooms, this practice translates into stronger essays, clearer discussions, and more respectful disagreement. In workplaces, it builds trust, sharpens communication, and promotes ethical decision-making. In personal relationships, it helps us understand the emotional and cultural weight behind people’s choices and responses. Ultimately, value-based reasoning is not about being right all the time. It’s about being honest, precise, and curious in the face of disagreement or uncertainty.

Conclusion: Thinking About What Matters

Moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning give structure to our deepest debates. These are not arguments about minor preferences or technical policies alone—they are about fairness, justice, dignity, and meaning. They shape our laws, our cultures, our relationships, and our sense of identity. When we argue about what’s right, what’s allowed, or what’s beautiful, we are navigating the values that define who we are and how we live together.

In a world flooded with opinion, fast takes, and emotionally charged content, it can be easy to treat value-based arguments as subjective or purely personal. But this kind of reasoning demands more: it invites us to clarify our beliefs, apply ethical or legal frameworks, and consider perspectives that challenge our own. These aren’t just academic tools—they’re civic skills, social responsibilities, and personal disciplines.

Practicing moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning in everyday life sharpens your ability to navigate difficult conversations, write more persuasive arguments, and evaluate the messages and systems that shape your world. It helps you become a more informed voter, a more thoughtful friend, a more critical reader, and a more engaged citizen.

Whether you are deciding how to respond to injustice, analyzing a controversial work of art, or questioning the fairness of a law, you now have a toolkit for making those decisions with clarity, compassion, and confidence. Use it. Share it. And keep asking not only what is true, but what matters—and why.

Exercises: Practicing Value-Based Reasoning

Label each of the following statements as using moral, legal, or aesthetic reasoning—or a combination. Explain your reasoning.
- “That billboard should be taken down because it disrespects the local culture.”
- “Everyone deserves access to affordable housing.”
- “That sculpture doesn’t belong in front of city hall—it’s confusing and doesn’t represent the community.”
- “The policy is unconstitutional because it violates free speech.”
- “It’s wrong to let a corporation profit from unpaid internships.”
Choose a current issue (like book bans, dress codes, or public protest). Write one short argument using moral reasoning, one using legal reasoning, and one using aesthetic reasoning.
Reflect on a time you changed your mind about something because someone appealed to your values. What kind of reasoning did they use? Why was it persuasive?

Exercises: Practicing Value-Based Reasoning (Expanded)

1. Identify the Reasoning

Label each of the following statements as using moral, legal, or aesthetic reasoning—or a combination. Explain your answer in one or two sentences.

“The school’s decision to censor the student newspaper undermines democratic values.”
“Graffiti is illegal on public property, regardless of the artist’s intent.”
“That film was technically impressive, but I found its message offensive.”
“Blocking access to clean water is a human rights violation.”
“A company’s logo should be redesigned because it looks outdated and unwelcoming.”

2. Multi-Framework Argument Practice

Choose a current issue (e.g., immigration policy, public surveillance, artificial intelligence, school dress codes, or climate protest). For that issue:

Write one short paragraph using moral reasoning to support your position.
Write one using legal reasoning.
Write one using aesthetic reasoning.
Then, write one paragraph combining all three types of reasoning into a single argument. Reflect: How does the combination strengthen or complicate your position?

3. Reasoning Remix

Read the following sentence:
“People who make offensive jokes should be banned from performing in public venues.”

Rewrite this sentence using only legal reasoning.
Rewrite it using only moral reasoning.
Rewrite it using only aesthetic reasoning.
In each version, explain what changed and why.

4. Perspective Swap

Choose a value-based conflict (e.g., removing a controversial statue, banning a book, rejecting a fashion trend at school). Then:

Write a brief defense of the action using one type of reasoning.
Then switch frameworks and write a counterargument using a different type of reasoning.
Finally, reflect on which argument felt more compelling and why.

5. Analyze a Policy or Rule

Find a real policy or guideline from your school, job, or city (e.g., parking restrictions, dress code, grading policy, or curfew). In 1–2 paragraphs:

Describe the policy.
Identify where moral, legal, and aesthetic reasoning show up—or where they’re missing.
Suggest how the policy might be revised using one of the other reasoning frameworks.

6. Values in Conversation

Interview a friend or family member about a value-based decision they recently made (e.g., what to eat, whether to vote, what music to support, what content to block). Ask:

What mattered most to them in making that decision?
What kind of reasoning do they think they used?
Do you agree? Could they have used a different form of reasoning?

Glossary

Aesthetic reasoning: A way of evaluating or interpreting something based on artistic, emotional, cultural, or symbolic value.

Care ethics: A moral framework that emphasizes relationships, empathy, and emotional connection in ethical decision-making.

Consequentialism: A theory in ethics that judges whether something is right based on the outcomes or consequences it produces.

Constitutional protections: Legal rights granted by a country’s constitution, such as freedom of speech, often used in legal arguments.

Cultural critique: An analysis or judgment of a society’s norms, symbols, or institutions, often expressed through art or public discourse.

Deontology: A moral theory that judges the rightness of actions based on whether they follow fixed rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.

Ethical frameworks: Systems or theories used to analyze what is right or wrong, such as consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, or care ethics.

Fitness of means to ends: The alignment between artistic choices (medium, style, scale) and the work’s intended purpose and audience.

Form (composition): The structured arrangement of elements—such as balance, contrast, rhythm, scale, and proportion—that guides attention and supports meaning.

Interpretation: The process of explaining or assigning meaning to a law, action, or artistic work.

Intertextuality: How a work references, echoes, or resists other works or genres to create meaning in context.

Productive ambiguity: Meaningful openness that invites interpretation without undermining coherence.

Legal reasoning: The practice of interpreting and applying laws, precedents, and rights to make a judgment in a specific case.

Moral reasoning: The practice of evaluating actions, people, or events in terms of right and wrong based on ethical principles.

Precedent: A previous legal decision that is used as a guide or rule in similar future cases.

Rights: Legal or moral entitlements that protect individuals' freedoms or claims, often central in legal and ethical debates.

Statutes: Written laws passed by legislative bodies that form the basis of legal reasoning.

Subjective: Based on personal feelings or opinions, often contrasted with objective or rule-based standards.

Unity and variety: The balance between coherence (parts belonging together) and difference (avoiding monotony) in an artwork’s form.

Virtue ethics: An ethical theory that emphasizes the character traits or virtues of a moral person rather than specific rules or consequences.

References

Beardsley, M. C. (1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism (2nd ed.). Hackett.

Danto, A. C. (1964). The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571–584.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Perigree.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2017). Critical Thinking (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Beacon Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Sontag, S. (1966). Against interpretation. In Against interpretation and other essays (pp. 3–14). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.