Values are an important part of argumentation not only
because of how they relate to pathos but how they relate to ethos as well. A
person’s credibility in an argument can be one of the most important factors to
decision makers, and often times a person’s set of values can disqualify them
in the eyes of decision makers in certain spheres. For example, the book says
that the dominant value system in the United States is the enlightenment value
system, which focuses on intellectual freedom and an individual’s ability to
discover the natural laws of life. So, if a person in an argument uses language
that suggests they hold values contrary to the enlightenment value system, they
could be viewed as not credible in the eyes of decision makers from our
culture. This principle can apply to individual arguments as well, as a person’s
set of values could hurt their credibility in discussion a certain topic. For
example, a person who holds the values that men are superior to women could be
seen as not credible when discussing abortion, because they are not likely to
take a woman’s individual rights into account when formulating their argument.
Values are a useful tool not only for supporting arguments but also for
understanding the different parties in an argument as well. If a person’s
values are made clear through their speech, it can be easier to predict what
stance they will take and also how well equipped they are to take that stance.
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