What are the value assumptions in each argument?
What are the descriptive assumptions behind each reason?
Are they acceptable
assumptions?
Also, are there any ambiguous
terms that affect the outcome of the argument? And are there any fallacies
of reasoning?
The following are examples of
unstated assumptions that must be accepted in order for each reason to be
true. There may be other assumptions
about each argument that are not listed.
Remember, all arguments require acceptance
of some assumptions.
1. We should get our
troops out of
A: There would be no unanticipated negative
consequences of an immediate withdrawal.
R: Bush lied to us about the
existence of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction.)
A: Unproven claim that Bush wasn’t mistaken, but
dishonest
A: There are/were no WMDs (maybe they haven’t been found yet.)
A: Had we not invaded, they wouldn’t have
developed WMDs.
A: There was no other good reason for invading.
R: We are only over there for oil,
anyway.
A: There was no other good reason for invading.
A: Unsubstantiated claim that oil was in fact a
reason. (And an ambiguity: what
would the “oil reason” be?)
R: The Iraqis don’t want us there.
A: There was no other good reason for invading.
A: Unsubstantiated and ambiguous
claim:
how many don’t want us there? How
many do?
R: They can fight their own
war. Its not
our business, anyway.
A: Unsubstantiated claim: Perhaps they can’t,
and might degenerate into civil war.
A: There is no other reason of interest to the
US even if they COULD fight their own war.
2. We need to stay
the course in Iraq until the job is done.
R:
If we back out now, it will only encourage terrorists.
A: Terrorists will see that we don’t mean
business and there will be more acts of terrorism.
R:
Winning the war in Iraq will make the world safer from terrorism.
A: Terrorists will
stop their acts of terrorism because they will be discouraged and/or less able
to secure cooperation and support.
A: The invasion of Iraq hasn’t made it less
safe.
A: The war is
“winnable.” (Ambiguity:
what kind of “win” can we expect?)
R:
We should finish what we started.
A: We can “finish” it, whatever that means.
A: Value assumption: It’s more important to
finish what you start than to admit you’re wrong and stop.
R:
We are fighting for Iraqi freedom and democracy.
A: There should be “freedom and democracy”
there, and we have a right/obligation to invade and make it occur. (Ambiguity: Who,
exactly, will be free? What kind of
freedom? What kind of democracy?)
3. Internet
pornography should be banned! (Ambiguity: What
is pornography?) (Ambiguity: Banned for
whom? By whom? Where?)
R: The constitution was never
meant to protect
pornography as free speech.
A: We know what the authors of the Constitution
meant.
A: Pornography is not a form of speech (or
self-expression).
A: We know what is—and what is not—pornography.
R:
Its too easy for kids to access it.
A: There’s no way to prevent kids’ access.
R:
It is destroying marriages. (Ambiguity:
destroying?? How many marriages?)
DA: There is a proven causal link, or it could be
proved.
DA: Without it, marriages would survive
VA: Saving bad marriages is more important than
protecting this form of “speech.”
R:
It is addictive. Many men spend
15-20 hours a week viewing it.
Ambiguity: criteria
for addiction?
A: There is
scientific proof of its addictive nature (akin to alcohol and
??gambling?)
R:
It is demeaning to women.
Ambiguity: what is
demeaning? How many women feel that
way? Do men feel that way?
A: Its only demeaning to women. Its not demeaning to
the viewers of pornography? Nor to males depicted in pornography?
A:
There is no negative effect on the community of its availability.
R:
It is constitutionally-protected “free speech”
A: We know what the authors of the Constitution
meant.
A: Pornography is a form of speech (or
self-expression).
A: We know what is—and what is not—pornography.
(Or, that could be a reason put forth for why it shouldn’t be banned—we don’t
know what it is!)
R: Those who don’t like it don’t
have to view it.
A: Those who don’t like it and don’t view it are
not affected by it.
A: Those who don’t like it have no
responsibility or authority to speak about a moral issue
to the rest of the
community. Or, the community has no
responsibility to set standards of conduct for any of its members if that
conduct can be avoided by some.
A: Those who don’t like can always avoid it.
R:
Parents can install filters
A: The filters will work.
A: Children will not be exposed to it at
friends’ homes.
R:
What one person does in the privacy of his/her home is nobody else’s
business if it isn’t hurting anyone.
A: It isn’t hurting
anyone.
A: “Private” behaviors of consenting adults are
never anyone else’s business.
Basic Value Conflict: Privacy/personal freedom of expression vs. community
standards regarding sexuality/sexual behavior and its effect on the community.
Value Conflicts
: Environment and natural resources vs. personal freedom.
R:
It will improve the environment: they are gas-guzzlers contributing to
global warming.
Ambiguity:
what constitutes a gas-guzzler?
A: Global Warming is caused by automobile
emissions.
A: The amount of global warming caused by SUVs
is known or knowable. It is a
significant amount.
A: There is no beneficial use of SUVs that
outweighs the possible negative impact to the environment of their use.
A: There are no other better ways to reduce
global warming.
A: There are no other passenger vehicles that
“guzzle.” Or, SUVs guzzle in a far
greater amount than other “guzzlers”.
A: Such a restriction on free-market personal
choice is a good trade-off for the amount of environmental improvement that
will result.
A: There are no serious consequences of such a
ban—only good will result.
R: They take up an unfair amount
of dwindling oil supplies.
Ambiguity: There is a way to determine what is fair, and
for whom.
Ambiguity: How fast and how much is the supply
dwindling? How much due to SUVs?
A: There will be no new oil supplies developed.
R:
SUVs are killer vehicles in accidents with smaller cars.
A: The deaths of occupants in smaller cars were
due to the size of the SUV involved.
A: The death rate in auto accidents will go down
if everyone has smaller cars. (It won’t
go up if none of those involved are “protected” by the larger vehicle size.)
A: Once SUVs are banned, there won’t be other
potential “killer vehicles” larger than the smallest cars.
6. We should enforce
limits on the number of children a couple should be allowed to conceive.
R: The world is overpopulated.
Ambiguities: “Overpopulated.” What would be the right amount of
population? Who decides? Too many people for what? In what countries should this be
enforced? What would the number of
children be limited to? How would it be
enforced?
A: the enforced limit on Americans would improve
the world population.
A: America is
overpopulated.
A: There would be no negative consequences to
this policy.
R:
Too many children in one family will result in some of them being
deprived of parental attention.
A: There are no
children in small families that are deprived of parental attention.
A:
We can arbitrate what constitutes enough or too little attention.
A: There are no positive effects of
large families.
R:
Large families take up too many of the world’s limited resources.
Ambiguity: What is “too many,” and “limited,” and
according to what/whose standard?
A: Children themselves are not a
resource of value.
A: Large families take up the same per capita
amount of resources as smaller families.
A: The world’s “limited” resources are not
renewable, or cannot be renewed, or no other resources will be discovered or
invented to replace the non-renewable ones.
R: China’s program of forced abortions and sterilization has effectively slowed the growth of the population of the largest country in the world.
A: China is a good
model to follow. There would be no
negative consequences to this policy if implemented here.
A: China’s policies
have been good for its citizens and the overall economic, political and moral
health of its country. There have been
no negative consequences to this policy in China.
The value conflict here is: world resources vs. personal reproductive freedom. Some would say the value conflict is possession of material goods over human life, or subjective “quality of life” for some over objective freedom of amount of life for others.
7. Condoms should be
distributed in high schools.
A big overall assumption:
Such a policy won’t have unintended negative consequences.
R:
It will lower the incidence of pregnant high school girls.
A: Such a policy won’t raise the
incidence of pregnancy.
A: Kids will have the condoms with them and use
them properly when needed.
R:
It will lower the incidence of STDs.
A: Kids will have the
condoms with them and use them properly when needed.
R:
It will send a message about safe, responsible sex.
A: Kids (i.e., ages 14-18) can indeed have safe,
responsible sex.
A: Encouraging condom use won’t encourage risky
behavior.
A: Condoms are safe for protection against
pregnancy and disease.
A: It won’t send a subliminal message of
approval/acceptance of premarital sex thus increasing sexual activity among
kids and increasing pregnancy, disease, and abortion.
8. Condoms should not
be distributed in high schools.
R:
It is not the school’s business to make public health policy decisions.
A: The school has no community role in
supporting values and educating about public health.
R:
It is the parents’ responsibility to provide or not provide such items
to their children.
A: If the parent is
not responsible in this area, or any other area,
the
school should not step in.
R:
It will send a message of adult approval of pre-marital sex.
A: It won’t send some other,
positive message about responsibility, or:
A:
The negative consequence of that message outweighs the positive message
of
safe and responsible sex.
R:
It will increase teen promiscuity.
Ambiguity:
what constitutes “promiscuity?” And how much?
A:
That amount of increase is known or can be known to be a result of such
a policy.