Theory & Practice of Argument Week 03: Ethical Advocacy & Arguments of Definition

Ethical Advocacy “Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way.” –Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R), Maine

Facts Get Buried… Have we entered a “post-truth” political era of the U.S.? What counts as a “fact” can be difficult to ascertain at times. “false balance” in broadcast news [tendency to treat opposed claims as equally legitimate] adds an additional layer of difficulty.

We DO have an Ethical Obligation Trying to influence another person’s decisions is an activity with a clear moral dimension. Thus, ethical questions arise the moment argumentation begins.

How Can We Ensure that Our Argumentation Is Morally Grounded? You should seek to: 1. Accurately represent my own views 2. Regard audience members, including opponents, as reasoning people 3. Present good evidence and sound reasoning on the topic under discussion

…is a virtue. Virtues: personal qualities that assist us in making ethically good choices Pluralism: the variety of moral and ethical perspectives present in contemporary societies So, is there a larger moral code to adhere to OR an inner set of virtues or character we rely upon?

We Can See 3 Different Conclusions to the Same Question Is it ok for us to engage in euthanasia within our society? Answer #1: all killing is wrong Answer #2: mercy outweighs the desire to preserve life Answer #3: it is a matter of individual choice

Benefits Derived From Argumentation 1. Disagreements are aired 2. Ideas are tested 3. Positions are refined.

Different Ethical Models / Founations for Argument Political Perspectives Human Nature Perspectives Dialogic Perspectives Situational Perspectives

Political Perspectives rely on the essential values of a political system for their criteria of ethical assessment. e.g. the U.S. Constitution or democracy in general. Freedom of speech as an ethical value.

Human Nature Perspectives perspectives that develop around one or more essential qualities of human nature. [we could define reasoning or persuasion as an essential part of a human nature]

Dialogic Perspective perspectives that elevate efforts to preserve the two-sidedness of public discourse. It begins with genuineness and empathy

Situational Perspective perspectives that identify ethical considerations or principles inherent to each unique communication setting.

Virtues cont. Aristotle: human virtues provide a basis for ethics. It is the individual’s character rather than external considerations such as moral rules. Perhaps an ethical system built on human virtues or character is more appropriate for today’s pluralistic society?

The Best Policy Argument virtues: moral qualities and skills that help people think and act morally in an argumentative situation Most people would say honesty is the most important virtue.

Pillars of Ethical Argument Courage in argument: a willingness to accept the risks associated with open advocacy of one’s position, even when that position is unpopular or dangerous. Cooperation Respect for persons For example, feminism

Now, let’s switch gears and think about definitional arguments

Definitions Within An Argumentative Context Definitions are crucial to every area of public reasoning. We see this in many everyday reports and discussions For example: Not a “recall” but rather a “voluntary company authorized maintenance” “global warming” is renamed “climate change”

Controlling the Argument; The Power of Language and Naming Define: advance a meaning for a word or to classify an object, person or act. Whoever controls the definitions in a debate controls the debate itself “Obamacare” and “death tax”

Sources of Definitions common usage etymology paradigm case original intent authority

Definition Report a definition that all parties to a debate agree upon, or that states a generally accepted or agreed upon meaning. Used to: 1. clarify a term’s meaning (dictionary definition) 2. used to establish that all parties agree that a term carries a particular meaning 3. establish meaning of a technical term for an audience unfamiliar with it.

Argumentative Definitions employed strategically to categorize an object or event so as to support a particular conclusion to an argument. “I wasn’t breaking the law; I was simply acting in the interest of national security.” Definition is very close to categorical validity (e.g. what is a “parent”?)

Three Steps for Argumentative Reasoning: 1. A category is defined by setting out criteria 2. A person, an object, or an act is placed in the category on the basis of its having satisfied the criteria 3. The new member is asserted to have other qualities of the members of that category.

Three Strategies of Definition 1. Euphemisms 2. Reclassification 3. Labeling

Euphemisms less objectionable and often less accurate terms exchanged for harsh, condemning, or emotionally charged terms. “youthful indescretions”

strategic placement of an object, person, or idea under a new heading. ReClassification strategic placement of an object, person, or idea under a new heading. “term limit restrictions” reclassed from “citizen empowerment laws” to “lobbyist empowerment laws”

Labeling characterizing a person, group, idea, or institution by introducing a suggestive name or term.

Evaluating Definitions 1. Is the definition circular? 2. Does the definition make a distinction without showing a difference? 3. Did the definition originate in an appropriate source?