Final answer:
Yes, the practice of 'fallacy checking' can be applied to moral arguments, despite moral statements not being reports of objective facts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The practice of 'fallacy checking' does apply to moral arguments, even when moral statements are not seen as reports of objective facts. Philosopher David Hume's famous is-ought problem highlights a central issue: you cannot logically derive what ought to be from what simply is. Nowadays, some philosophers uphold the possibility of objective moral reasoning through concepts like telos, where actions are assessed against their success in fulfilling a certain goal. Conversely, moral skeptics emphasize that moral reasoning is separate from empirical fact, steeped in human sentiments and beliefs, which are not objective facts.
Moral realists argue that some moral assertions can be objectively true. They reject the sharp fact-value distinction, claiming that facts can be laden with value judgments and values can entail certain facts. Putnam's rejection of the fact-value dichotomy, through the integration of values in scientific practice, is a pivotal argument in this context. Likewise, the naturalistic fallacy cautions against deriving moral judgments solely from empirical facts. Thus, assessing moral arguments for logical coherence and evaluating for fallacies remains vital in the robust examination of moral reasoning.