Skip to main content

Chapter 8

            In Chapter 8, the authors of the text discuss values. As defined by Clyde Kluckhohn, “‘A value… is a conception… of the desirable that influences the selection from available nodes, means and ends of action” (as cited in Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 121). The text further explores how we evaluate values on an individual basis and how we evaluate values grouped together in value systems. Value systems appear as linked claims, and we can evaluate them based on how compatible individual values are in specific systems to determine how strong or weak an argument is (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 124). I find that we see the strongest arguments come when we perceive a sense of unity between values in these systems from which someone is arguing. The sensational way that the values are codependent on each other intrigues me the most.

            An extreme case of this can be seen in situations of hypocrisy, where someone makes an argument that strongly represents one value, but also embraces a value that is the antithesis of the value being argued for. For example, many of the United States Founding Fathers argued having in mind the values of liberty and freedom. We adopted and kept these as core values in American society for over two centuries, but we often forget that many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, and our society functions as it does today as a result of slave ownership in the first half of the nation’s history. The Founding Fathers and our society’s early values of freedom and liberty are directly contradicted by the antithesis values such as confinement and slavery, and this is a way hypocrisy can arise in terms of values and value systems.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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