One of the concrete values I hold is that I only buy kosher meat. It is ethical for Jewish people to eat kosher meat; it is the good and right thing to do. However, like the book suggests, my religious values are (as a mostly secular Jew) up against other values I hold. These other values stem from being an American, a Westerner, and a person who enjoys philosophy (and not solely Jewish philosophy.) My value system is thus often forced to be hierarchical and the tradition I have of eating kosher is sometimes thrown up against the value I hold of being respectful to others. There are times when I have eaten non-kosher meat out of respect for my hosts or simply because consuming only kosher food is not on the top of my value hierarchy. It is interesting then, that values which I hold both because of my faith and because of non-religious influence, fall to the top of my value hierarchy. An example of this is giving to charity. Since giving to charity is a value that can be found both in the secular world and in the religious one, it is less easily compromised than my value of eating kosher. As giving charity never conflicts with a secular value, it is thus honored in any sphere I so chose to embody.
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 enjoyed reading about your personal values! I don't think values need to be either/or, but rather and/both. Like you said, just because you choose to eat non kosher meat while at a friends house does not mean that you are turning against your religious beliefs. Or, because you choose to eat kosher as often as possible does not mean that you will not eat if a kosher option is not available. It is easy to think in black and white, but this chapter on values is a good reminder that nothing exits in solitude.
ReplyDeleteI think that touches on a concept in argumentation that is often forgotten or ignored. Identifying values that satisfy both religion and more secular values is a great place to find and build trust. I think a concept that relates directly to this is the idea of intersectionality. While this term is often applied to peoples' identities in the context of oppression, I think looking at values in terms of intersections is important. At the intersections of different value systems we find common values that can be emphasized to increase trust. Simply using the intersections of value systems as a tool might sound a bit opportunistic, but I think in the right hands this can be one of the best implementations of argumentation. By demonstrating these overlapping values, groups that feel opposed to each other might actually come to understand each other.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting post to read. I think that your insight into conflicting values is very interesting. The conflict of secular vs religious values is certainly important to many people and I think that it is something that gives a lot of insight into values as a whole. Values can be, of course, vitally important to argumentation and they often drive what people choose to argue for or against. So presenting the choice between secular and religious values that conflict sets up a good look into values in argumentation. The choice between values and deciding which supersedes the other is one that I’m sure many people have to make. I think that it is also important to remember that, like you mentioned, values can also often align. Giving to charity is near universally considered a good thing to do in all value systems and it thus holds a position of invincibility in some ways when looked upon by any value system. Values are certainly an interesting topic.
ReplyDelete