One of the concrete values I hold is that I only buy kosher meat. It is ethical for Jewish people to eat kosher meat; it is the good and right thing to do. However, like the book suggests, my religious values are (as a mostly secular Jew) up against other values I hold. These other values stem from being an American, a Westerner, and a person who enjoys philosophy (and not solely Jewish philosophy.) My value system is thus often forced to be hierarchical and the tradition I have of eating kosher is sometimes thrown up against the value I hold of being respectful to others. There are times when I have eaten non-kosher meat out of respect for my hosts or simply because consuming only kosher food is not on the top of my value hierarchy. It is interesting then, that values which I hold both because of my faith and because of non-religious influence, fall to the top of my value hierarchy. An example of this is giving to charity. Since giving to charity is a value that can be found both in the secular world and in the religious one, it is less easily compromised than my value of eating kosher. As giving charity never conflicts with a secular value, it is thus honored in any sphere I so chose to embody.
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...
I really enjoyed reading about your personal values! I don't think values need to be either/or, but rather and/both. Like you said, just because you choose to eat non kosher meat while at a friends house does not mean that you are turning against your religious beliefs. Or, because you choose to eat kosher as often as possible does not mean that you will not eat if a kosher option is not available. It is easy to think in black and white, but this chapter on values is a good reminder that nothing exits in solitude.
ReplyDeleteI think that touches on a concept in argumentation that is often forgotten or ignored. Identifying values that satisfy both religion and more secular values is a great place to find and build trust. I think a concept that relates directly to this is the idea of intersectionality. While this term is often applied to peoples' identities in the context of oppression, I think looking at values in terms of intersections is important. At the intersections of different value systems we find common values that can be emphasized to increase trust. Simply using the intersections of value systems as a tool might sound a bit opportunistic, but I think in the right hands this can be one of the best implementations of argumentation. By demonstrating these overlapping values, groups that feel opposed to each other might actually come to understand each other.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting post to read. I think that your insight into conflicting values is very interesting. The conflict of secular vs religious values is certainly important to many people and I think that it is something that gives a lot of insight into values as a whole. Values can be, of course, vitally important to argumentation and they often drive what people choose to argue for or against. So presenting the choice between secular and religious values that conflict sets up a good look into values in argumentation. The choice between values and deciding which supersedes the other is one that I’m sure many people have to make. I think that it is also important to remember that, like you mentioned, values can also often align. Giving to charity is near universally considered a good thing to do in all value systems and it thus holds a position of invincibility in some ways when looked upon by any value system. Values are certainly an interesting topic.
ReplyDelete