Substantive moral reasoning is needed to address the question concerning wrongfulness.
Here's how the overview in the Standards document summarizes it: The ability to write logical arguments based on substantive claims, sound reasoning and relevant evidence is a cornerstone of the writing standards, with opinion writing — a basic form of argument — extending down into the earliest grades.
The weaker interpretation sees only very basic logical, semantic or conceptual constraints on understanding others and thus what is constitutive of minds which allows for significant variation as one moves further out from these to more substantive principles of practical reasoning and theoretical reasoning, and even more when extending out further to desires and values.
To characterize the argument form more fully, however, is not possible without either taking a step towards a substantive theory of analogical reasoning or restricting attention to certain classes of analogical arguments.
Ruling out certain configurations of beliefs constitute substantive assumptions about the players' reasoning during the decision making process.
Writing 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
(How well did each "write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence," for instance?) Create a Student or Community Version of Room for Debate Is there an interesting controversy in your school or community right now?
On the other hand, "contractualists," such as John Rawls, John Harsanyi (1977), Thomas Scanlon (1998), Stephen Darwall (2006), and Nicholas Southwood (2010) attribute ethical or political values to the deliberative parties, as well as a much more substantive, non-instrumentalist form of practical reasoning.
Rather than repudiating the Treatise, perhaps his recasting of it represents a shift in the way he presents his "principles and reasoning" rather than a substantive change in what he has to say.
It is easy to see that, combined with the rejection of rational intuition, the Vienna Circle's exclusive apportionment of reason into either formal a priori reasoning, issuing in analytic truths (or contradictions), and substantive a posteriori reasoning, issuing in synthetic truths (or falsehoods), severely challenged the traditional understanding of philosophy.
