Skip to main content

chap 12

The legal world sometimes seems like it's the ideal world. It's a sphere where the good and the bad fight it out and in the end (hopefully) justice, and the good, triumph. However the legal argumentation is not free from subjectivity and story-telling. Though we have discussed earlier in the semester how personal accounts are often seen as not substantial, the account a lawyer tells the jury and the courtroom is also in a way, personal. The defendant and the plaintiff bring their side of the facts. Meaning, although both parties may be discussing and recounting the same event, their different variations of the truth of the event gives the facts of the story meaning and reputability. The "truth of the matter" is not so easy to parse out. And often times, there are multiple truths and hundreds of vantage points. Despite this however, the judges and/or the jury must decide which set of facts composed in which narrative are the most convincing and the most likely to replicate the truth of the matter. Things like consistency and noncontradiction help bolster narratives. The Supreme Court tries to be consistent by using decisions made in prior cases to reference the case at hand. To rule against a prior decision may unveil a contradiction or a false adherence to objectivity. The Supreme Court tries to define things in a way which could apply to all analogous cases and in regards to questions they know are bound to come up again.  Their ruling is therefore not simply in regards to the case at hand, but encapsulates a more conclusive idea of the essence of a particular law and the question it generates. For instance their ruling in FEC v Citizens United, completely altered the way money can be used in political campaigning. They didn't just allow the documentary about Clinton to be permissible, they also tackled a larger issue in the process of their decision making.

Comments

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