Skip to main content

Blog post 7 - Chapter 8

This chapter was helpful in understanding how values play a role in argumentation. According to the textbook, a value is "Is a conception... of the desirable that influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action" (Pg. 121). Although values have a means to an end, there are several different forms in which values can help an argument. For example, terminal and instrumental values, these two forms will reflect the ends of what a person desires. With terminal values being the most central kind of value system for an individual it opens the opportunity for an argument to be made. For example, if I made an argument that supported my values that being lazy is a result of lack of responsibility this would be a based off an instrumental value. But if I said that being responsible leads to a sense of accomplishment then I have made the argument that valuing responsibility is a terminal value. The end goal is to have a sense of accomplishment and being responsible will lead to that. I feel like this would be mainly used in parents when they are educating their children about values. The end goal is the knowledge they would want their kinds to understand. Them always having a sense of accomplishment from the responsibility they have take in whatever they do. This would be where values would play a big role in influencing decision makers. The decision maker has to understand why the value would be important to them when choosing to honor it or not. I think that this would be important when discussing major issues in society. Always making sure the case maker is showing the decision maker the action and the end result of such values.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more