Chapter 8 discusses the concept of values and how they are used by arguers with credibility and evidence to support claims. Additionally, values are usually implied and are general concepts that “define what arguers and decision makers believe are desirable” (Peterson et al, pg. 73). In other words, values tend to be ideas or believes that the audience/arguers support or side themselves with. Another important element to consider is how values appear in systems, they usually don’t stand alone. For example, when individuals argue racism, they don’t just focus on one issue, but instead include numerous values that make up the unified system. Reading about these value systems helped me realize how presenting just one value to support a claim is not sufficient. In order to create a strong argument that includes values as a means of support, numerous related values must be considered and presented as a system to the decision makers. On the other hand, it is also important to evaluate values before they are presented because there must be high certainty that the decision makers side with these values. In my opinion, values are the hardest means of support when it comes to arguments because they are not as simple as evidence, for example. Values tend to be more personal to the decision makers which can make it a greater challenge to present claims that only use values as a means of support. For example, when using raw evidence in a criminal justice case, like the murder weapon, it is harder for the decision makers to question that type of support. However, if an attorney was to say “Killing is a sin and this act has caused so much pain for the victims family” the jury would need more supporting claims to help make their decision.
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
I really agree with you when you say that values tend to be more personal. This is what makes using them so hard, especially since values are often part of a person's core morals and they may be unwilling to have an open mind. I think that having multiple values that make a value system is very important in making a good, solid argument. It is also important to know the value system of the audience you are trying to convince, as appealing to their values may make it more personal, which may make them more inclined to take your stance. Another thing that may make working with values difficult (as you mentioned) is that values are almost always implied, which can sometimes make them difficult to pick up on if they are nuanced or if you or the audience are not well-versed on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statements in your post. I think values are something you suppose to present in a system. It can stand alone in any argument unless you and the person you are arguing against, believe or stand for the same thing. And that is rare for you and someone else to have the same belief system. I think they are more effective when you present them in a system and they have to be proven as well. I also agree with your statement on that they are the hardest of the support system. For instance, most people tend to bring up personal beliefs and that’s not ok in some arguments. That sometimes could cause you to lose some arguments because you brought up something that the person you are arguing against doesn’t stand for or doesn’t acknowledge.
ReplyDelete