Skip to main content

Chapter 8

In this chapter we talk about values. There are all sorts of values but something that also plays into values is ethics. Ethics are a huge part of society including politics. The book describes ethics as "the theory between right and wrong. It also says that ethics should define how we behave towards one another. It continues to say that decision makers should be protected from unethical arguers and that some unethical arguments is denying someone freedom of speech, to tell things you know not to be true, to be unfair to an opponent and more.

Over the years, there has been lots of ethic issues in politics such as Trump becoming president because of his ethics. A lot of people don't agree with his morals and personal ethics. He also didn't tell the truth many times and that made it unfair for his opponent.

Another one is the Kavanuagh case. This had tons of ethical issues in it. Like is Kavanaugh telling the truth about his past? Is telling the truth about his future? Will he be a man who abuses women? There is so much going on here that revolves around ethics. morals, and values. Some say that because Trump got away with his ethical issues that it is easier for others to do the same according to an article written by author in the San Francisco News.

The article talks about the California Governor being reelected. The governor was a businesses man who had sharing in liquor stores, strip clubs and more. Many say that it's unethical for a man with such "dirty" taste to be Governor. And that cause an issue with many people ethics, morals, and values. However, like mentioned before he states that he probably will win because of the low standards and examples Trump has set.

Therefore, has our society's and country's ethics, morals, and values gone down over the years?

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 31, 2018 at 7:30 AM

    I think it is important to think about ethical issues regarding our politicians in this country, however I think it is more important to point out there unethical values rather than their unethical decisions. Although their poor decisions may reflect some of their values, it is crucial to identify their unethical values that are at the root of their actions. Since values are defined as the concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand, its most important to evaluate the unethical concepts that our politicians desire and what the voters or decision makers understand. Kavanaugh’s case showed his unethical actions in the past, however he has a clean track record up until this incident was brought up. Although his ethical values may have been poor when he made the decision to assault a woman, or when he may have lied in court, but there is no way to assess what is true and what is false. This was a clear representation of value hierarchies because of the way the decision makers evaluated the problem and concluded whether to elect him or not. Many decision makers were conflicted about his values, and how to grade the values in the given argument that he was presenting, and being attacked with. Overall, any ethical dilemma will have to be deeply analyzed to discover how rooted the problem is, and whether another arguer has to point out these unethical issues, especially with politicians which commonly happens through attack ads.

    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

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...
1 comment
Read more