Skip to main content

Chapter 12


Chapter 12’s focus on argumentation as it is used in the legal sphere was especially interesting to me because I intend on going to law school and becoming a lawyer, and have taken law classes that cover many of the same concepts that are outlined in this chapter. What is especially interesting to me is the idea that argumentation in the legal sphere isn’t necessarily used to make decisions that are the most fair, but rather the decisions that will cause the least chaos. Courts in the United States follow the mantra of stare decisis, which is a latin phrase that means “let the decision stand”. Because there are little to no statutes in civil law, courts have to make decisions based on what they think to be the best decision due to the facts and circumstances. In order to speed up the process and avoid bogging down the court system with debates over issues that have been addressed before, courts follow stare decisis by making decisions in line with decisions made in previous similar cases. Because of this, when addressing a new issue, courts strive to make decisions that aren’t necessarily the most fair, but that will cause the least chaos and difficulty to analyze, since they will be setting the precedent to future cases. That is why arguments used in the legal sphere shouldn’t seek to make your case seem right based on what is fair or morally right, but to convince the appropriate decision makers that your argument is the most logical according to the facts and circumstances.

Comments

  1. AnonymousDecember 4, 2018 at 8:12 PM

    I really like how you brought up the fact that legal decisions aren't necessarily the right decision, but rather the decision that makes the most sense. There are two opposing sides that have once chance at delivering the best argument that is factual and will benefit their client. As you said, there is only one chance to get it right, so everything is on the line. Even the side who is in the right wins, it is important that they compose and offer an accurate and respectable argument that is free of fallacies. I think having an honest argument in all senses of the word is so important for reputation and public opinion down the line.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 5, 2018 at 7:04 AM

    I like the that you mention that the court system in place tries to go with what they think will cause the least amount of chaos and that doesn't always mean that it is morally right. The decision makers in the court case have a lot of power to influence the future rulings as well and if the decision makers come to a conclusion, but if the decision makers don't choose the best option it has a major impact. It's important to have attorney's represent someone because they are specialists with, legal things, but also well versed in how to deal with logical fallacies so that the opposition can not take advantage of the other party, thereby holding each side accountable for the most fair and logical argument.

    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