Skip to main content

Chapter 8 - Values and Ethics

Values are defined as concepts that an arguer finds desirable that a decision maker can understand. They are used by the arguers with credibility and evidence to justify their main points and goal claim, however values have a variety of characteristics as they fit into different segments of argumentation.Clearly values are a very broad and general topics that have many subsections to it including positive, negative, terminal, abstract, and many more types.

A very important concept to this idea of values is the value systems behind an argument. Value systems are explained as a set of several values that are linked to one claim in an argument. Clyde Kluckhohn calls these “value orientations” as well, which are “generalized and organized conceptions… of the desirable and non-desirable” (“Values” 411). Value systems are very interesting as they factor into all individual argument and play a vital role for decision makers, especially if the argument is about a desirable or undesirable topic that will effect many people. A huge part of these value systems for everyone are the ethics behind a person’s values. Ethics are based upon “the good and the right” (127) which define how we behave towards others and decision makers. Although there are often unethical arguments, it is up to arguers to point out those unethical arguers with roots to poor values.

An interesting example to look at from the past few years was the flag burnings across the United States in various protests of our government. The flag holds very strong values and represents the concrete values, which is when a particular object, person, group, etc. serve as a form of values. In the United States, our flag is a huge symbolization of freedom, equality, and our long comings, however people throughout our history have destroyed this symbol as a form of retaliation. These actions could be seen as unethical across many individual spheres, however most people found these actions to be very upsetting and disrespectful to the history, government, and values of the United States. This action has been argued about across the supreme court, debating whether it is an unconstitutional act, or whether it should be legal, which plays into individual freedoms. As a whole, the flag represents a lot more than the concrete values of the United States. It represents our identity as a whole, however, flag burning is a very sticky subject that has been ruled legal despite it affecting all citizen’s individual values and the country's identity as a whole.

Comments

  1. I agree with a lot of the things you stated here. One of the things you said was that Values are defined as concepts that the arguer finds desirable that a decision maker can understand. I do agree that Values are based around the arguers desire. Because for one to argue about a topic, that means the care about that topic. What I thought was interesting though was the part about the decision maker being able to understand the values. I know I mentioned in my blog post that some people don't explicitly state their values and I then brought up how I don't agree with that because your values should be stated so that your audience knows exactly what you're feeling. Therefore, I agree with that statement 100%. I also really enjoyed your story about the flag. The flag burning is a huge controversy but I will have to say that I agree with the people who believe it is not right for others to burn the flag because of the values behind our flag. We most likely know that the reason people burn it in the first place is to go against our values and therefore I believe it is wrong and unjust-- that is just a personal opinion. But I think you did a great job at finding a good complex example for this topic. Overall, I can see that you have a good understanding and grasp of what values are really all about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a very refreshing take on what the authors of the text are saying in Chapter 8. I especially enjoyed your example of flag burning to tie all of the concepts of the chapter together. I believe flag burning is a valid example in demonstrating how we often look at values in a hierarchical sense and how everyone has different values at different points in these hierarchies that we construct.

    When looking at flag burning, you stated that the flag was a symbol of values such as freedom, equality, the country’s long journey to where it is now. Americans commonly embrace these values, but we seem to always find variances on the amount of emphasis each of us place on these values compared to others in our lives. While some believe that the values the flag symbolizes are important enough to never warrant burning it, others feel that the values that are compelling them to do something like burn the flag are more important than the values they believe the flag stands for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The flag burning is a very good, and controversial topic, example because it is so polarizing in values and even intrinsically. Someone might question it is unconstitutional because of what it stands for and on the other hand, argue that it is a freedom of speech. I recently got into a discussion with colleagues about the protests by the westboro babtist church that happened at the funeral of a fallen marine. The church group was protesting because they thought that it was a good thing that the marine had died and deserved it. Strong evidence supports it was because the father of the fallen soldier was openly gay, but the church group claims they were only advocating their freedom of speech. The family sued for $5 million and the church group took it to the supreme court who rules in favor of the church group because they deemed it a freedom of speech. No matter what we think should happen because of the moral we are taught and we learn, the values of the legal system of the country differ very differently and may no align with what we think is right and just.

    ReplyDelete

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

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

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