This chapter was helpful in understanding how values play a role in argumentation. According to the textbook, a value is "Is a conception... of the desirable that influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action" (Pg. 121). Although values have a means to an end, there are several different forms in which values can help an argument. For example, terminal and instrumental values, these two forms will reflect the ends of what a person desires. With terminal values being the most central kind of value system for an individual it opens the opportunity for an argument to be made. For example, if I made an argument that supported my values that being lazy is a result of lack of responsibility this would be a based off an instrumental value. But if I said that being responsible leads to a sense of accomplishment then I have made the argument that valuing responsibility is a terminal value. The end goal is to have a sense of accomplishment and being responsible will lead to that. I feel like this would be mainly used in parents when they are educating their children about values. The end goal is the knowledge they would want their kinds to understand. Them always having a sense of accomplishment from the responsibility they have take in whatever they do. This would be where values would play a big role in influencing decision makers. The decision maker has to understand why the value would be important to them when choosing to honor it or not. I think that this would be important when discussing major issues in society. Always making sure the case maker is showing the decision maker the action and the end result of such values.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment