Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121). There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values. Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve the same pay as men for the same work” would be an implied value. (121)We can also use contrast in our arguments by implementing positive and negative values to show the differences between points we oppose and those that we encourage. Lastly, there are terminal and instrumental values. Terminal values are those that are the end result that someone desires. Economic freedom or a comfortable life are examples of an end result that would be a terminal value. An instrumental value, on the other hand, is defined as the “means “ to attain the desirable end. The way I remember it is that instrumental values are “instruments” that we can use to get us to the outcome we desire. An example of an instrumental value would be “capability”, “courage” and “forgiveness” (123). Personally, I think positive and negative values are great tools to use in argumentation. For one we can use them to attack specific proposals as well as using contrast to better our own. For example, we might be arguing in a public hearing about whether or not the city should implement a $15 minimum wage. We could say that the current minimum wage requirements are “immoral”, “do not provide enough security to families” or make it “ impossible to have stable finances” as negative values. Then, we could counteract them by saying that our proposal for a $15 minimum wage would help create “financial stability” in lower income families, “make it easier to raise children”, etc. All things that would strengthen our argument and make it more likely to gain adherence.
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
Comments
Post a Comment