Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121). There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values. Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve the same pay as men for the same work” would be an implied value. (121)We can also use contrast in our arguments by implementing positive and negative values to show the differences between points we oppose and those that we encourage. Lastly, there are terminal and instrumental values. Terminal values are those that are the end result that someone desires. Economic freedom or a comfortable life are examples of an end result that would be a terminal value. An instrumental value, on the other hand, is defined as the “means “ to attain the desirable end. The way I remember it is that instrumental values are “instruments” that we can use to get us to the outcome we desire. An example of an instrumental value would be “capability”, “courage” and “forgiveness” (123). Personally, I think positive and negative values are great tools to use in argumentation. For one we can use them to attack specific proposals as well as using contrast to better our own. For example, we might be arguing in a public hearing about whether or not the city should implement a $15 minimum wage. We could say that the current minimum wage requirements are “immoral”, “do not provide enough security to families” or make it “ impossible to have stable finances” as negative values. Then, we could counteract them by saying that our proposal for a $15 minimum wage would help create “financial stability” in lower income families, “make it easier to raise children”, etc. All things that would strengthen our argument and make it more likely to gain adherence.
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