Chapter 12’s focus on argumentation as it is used in the
legal sphere was especially interesting to me because I intend on going to law
school and becoming a lawyer, and have taken law classes that cover many of the
same concepts that are outlined in this chapter. What is especially interesting
to me is the idea that argumentation in the legal sphere isn’t necessarily used
to make decisions that are the most fair, but rather the decisions that will
cause the least chaos. Courts in the United States follow the mantra of stare decisis, which is a latin phrase
that means “let the decision stand”. Because there are little to no statutes in
civil law, courts have to make decisions based on what they think to be the
best decision due to the facts and circumstances. In order to speed up the
process and avoid bogging down the court system with debates over issues that
have been addressed before, courts follow stare
decisis by making decisions in line with decisions made in previous similar
cases. Because of this, when addressing a new issue, courts strive to make
decisions that aren’t necessarily the most fair, but that will cause the least
chaos and difficulty to analyze, since they will be setting the precedent to
future cases. That is why arguments used in the legal sphere shouldn’t seek to
make your case seem right based on what is fair or morally right, but to
convince the appropriate decision makers that your argument is the most logical
according to the facts and circumstances.
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 like how you brought up the fact that legal decisions aren't necessarily the right decision, but rather the decision that makes the most sense. There are two opposing sides that have once chance at delivering the best argument that is factual and will benefit their client. As you said, there is only one chance to get it right, so everything is on the line. Even the side who is in the right wins, it is important that they compose and offer an accurate and respectable argument that is free of fallacies. I think having an honest argument in all senses of the word is so important for reputation and public opinion down the line.
ReplyDeleteI like the that you mention that the court system in place tries to go with what they think will cause the least amount of chaos and that doesn't always mean that it is morally right. The decision makers in the court case have a lot of power to influence the future rulings as well and if the decision makers come to a conclusion, but if the decision makers don't choose the best option it has a major impact. It's important to have attorney's represent someone because they are specialists with, legal things, but also well versed in how to deal with logical fallacies so that the opposition can not take advantage of the other party, thereby holding each side accountable for the most fair and logical argument.
ReplyDelete