Skip to main content

Chapter 8 Post


Chapter 8 discusses the concept of values and how they are used by arguers with credibility and evidence to support claims. Additionally, values are usually implied and are general concepts that “define what arguers and decision makers believe are desirable” (Peterson et al, pg. 73). In other words, values tend to be ideas or believes that the audience/arguers support or side themselves with. Another important element to consider is how values appear in systems, they usually don’t stand alone. For example, when individuals argue racism, they don’t just focus on one issue, but instead include numerous values that make up the unified system. Reading about these value systems helped me realize how presenting just one value to support a claim is not sufficient. In order to create a strong argument that includes values as a means of support, numerous related values must be considered and presented as a system to the decision makers. On the other hand, it is also important to evaluate values before they are presented because there must be high certainty that the decision makers side with these values. In my opinion, values are the hardest means of support when it comes to arguments because they are not as simple as evidence, for example. Values tend to be more personal to the decision makers which can make it a greater challenge to present claims that only use values as a means of support. For example, when using raw evidence in a criminal justice case, like the murder weapon, it is harder for the decision makers to question that type of support. However, if an attorney was to say “Killing is a sin and this act has caused so much pain for the victims family” the jury would need more supporting claims to help make their decision. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 31, 2018 at 8:47 AM

    I really agree with you when you say that values tend to be more personal. This is what makes using them so hard, especially since values are often part of a person's core morals and they may be unwilling to have an open mind. I think that having multiple values that make a value system is very important in making a good, solid argument. It is also important to know the value system of the audience you are trying to convince, as appealing to their values may make it more personal, which may make them more inclined to take your stance. Another thing that may make working with values difficult (as you mentioned) is that values are almost always implied, which can sometimes make them difficult to pick up on if they are nuanced or if you or the audience are not well-versed on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 31, 2018 at 11:25 AM

    I totally agree with your statements in your post. I think values are something you suppose to present in a system. It can stand alone in any argument unless you and the person you are arguing against, believe or stand for the same thing. And that is rare for you and someone else to have the same belief system. I think they are more effective when you present them in a system and they have to be proven as well. I also agree with your statement on that they are the hardest of the support system. For instance, most people tend to bring up personal beliefs and that’s not ok in some arguments. That sometimes could cause you to lose some arguments because you brought up something that the person you are arguing against doesn’t stand for or doesn’t acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

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 th...
Post a Comment
Read more