Skip to main content

Chapter 8

I thought this chapter was very interesting and extremely pertinent in today's sociopolitical climate. I think the text provides a good base for what values are, but in reality, they are much, much more complicated than that. The obvious examples that come to my mind for values are the values that may politicians base campaigns on. They brand themselves by their values, which they feel will appeal to voters that they have a chance of swaying in their favor. Their opponents often attack their values and try to point out flaws or discrepancies. This is often seen in attack ads run by politicians that attempt to undermine the voters' confidence in the other candidate's values and ethics. Ethics are rooted in values and play a hugely important role in argumentation and decision making. The proper definition of what ethics is what people believe to be morally right or morally wrong. However, because many people have different values, there can be differences in what people see as ethical. With the political climate becoming very polarized, this phenomenon is seen more and more. Politicians will try to vilify the values and morals of politicians of the opposite party by saying they are immoral or unethical. I think ethics can be extremely difficult to navigate, as many people have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong. These kinds of questions have come up in the news recently with controversial cases like the Brett Kavanaugh case and the discussion surrounding things like environmental regulations and abortion.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 29, 2018 at 11:51 AM

    I liked what you said about politicians using values as a means of winning people over to vote for them. I do agree that it plays a major role in how politicians structure their campaigns. In my mind, politicians look at what the majority of people value and what their ethics are, so that they then can come off as being on the same side as the majority of people in any given case, in an attempt to win over their votes. I assume many politicians would much rather adapt to expressing the values of the majority in order to win votes, even if those values might be different from their own personal values. For example, a value that President Trump has often expressed in many different ways, is that he does not like immigration, which he knows there are millions of Americans that would agree with him. Especially when he explains his reason for being against immigration is that he wants to bring the American people more jobs. But it is not just President Trump that does this, many politicians from different parties use values as a way to gain peoples votes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadie WollerOctober 30, 2018 at 8:29 PM

    When reading this chapter it never occurred to me to that people could have different views on values and ethics. But you're absolutely right, look at all the serial killers I'd bet that they don't think killing people is unethical. However, I think as far a politicians go that at one point there was a certain standard for ethics. Or traditions, that people held on their leaders and I think that's because it was how our forefathers did things. These set of standards that were held seemed to have broken when Trump became president. I've read several articles that talk about how our values and expectation for our leaders have declined because of Trump. The values he saw of treating women and people in general along with much more have paved a away for more slime ball politicians to step forward. Such as the Governor California rerunning for Governor but owning liquor stores and strip clubs as a living. It seems unethical to most but the article said he'll probably win the election because the standards on ethics have dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 31, 2018 at 8:43 AM

    In response to Sadie and the serial killer comment, I am not certain if I agree with you. I think that some people are valueless. There are hedonistic people, who may place the short term pleasure of something over their values. For instance, a spouse might choose to cheat on their significant other because they wish to satisfy a particular pleasure rather than staying steadfast on their more 'logical' values. It is very interesting that you bring up the Governor from California, who allegedly owns these "immoral" businesses, since some might say that what the Governor does in their personal life is not necessarily as relevant as their policies and the ethical nature they possess. It is commonplace for normal or even "good" people to have bad or unethical qualities and proclivities. And it is such a fascinating question as to whether or not those parts of people are truly reflective of their overall character. Morality to some people, is not as pertinent as other gratifications. Or for some, it may be a tough and daily battle to chose the moral over the immoral.

    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