1705136713

1705136714 · Start with one of the motions used in this text. Construct at least three arguments in support of that motion. One of the arguments should follow the “simple argument” structure; one should follow the “combined argument” structure; and the other should be an “independent argument.”

1705136715

1705136716

1705136717

1705136718

1705136719 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132507]

1705136720 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 19Argumentation, Consequences, and Principles

1705136721

1705136722 Robert Trapp

1705136723

1705136724 Chapter Outline

1705136725

1705136726 19.1 Evaluation Based on Consequences of Action

1705136727

1705136728 19.2 Evaluation Based on Principles of Duties and Rights

1705136729

1705136730 19.3 Summary

1705136731

1705136732 19.4 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 19

1705136733

1705136734 19.5 Discussion Questions for Chapter 19

1705136735

1705136736 19.6 Exercises for Chapter 19

1705136737

1705136738 Chapter 15 described different categories of claims: descriptive, definitional, associational, and evaluative. Although some claims fall fundamentally into one of the first three categories, the position taken in this book is that all, or at least most, claims have an evaluative dimension. Thus, evaluation is the primary function of argumentation. Evaluation in argumentation occurs when people claim that one value or set of values is more important than another; that those values are associated with various people, ideas, institutions, or objects; or that those values should be used to guide our actions. Because those kinds of claims are most common in educational debate, this chapter will focus on the last two types of claims—claims that associate values to objects, and claims that evaluate policies or actions.

1705136739

1705136740

1705136741

1705136742 Two related but distinct ways that people use evaluative claims in argumentation can be described in terms of consequences and principles. Consequences and principles are certainly related to one another. In general, arguments by consequence are based on the philosophy of utilitarianism, and arguments by principle are based on the philosophy of deontology. Sometimes in philosophy, these two methods are used as foils for one another. They are compared to one another in ways that makes one seem superior to the other. From the perspective of this text, both methods, although different, are useful. In fact, more often than not, the two methods can be used to reach the same conclusion but in different ways. The following will explain how the two methods function.

1705136743

1705136744 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132508]

1705136745 19.1 Evaluation Based on Consequences of Action

1705136746

1705136747 An argument based on consequences relies, as the name implies, on direct material consequences. Arguing by consequences is associated with the philosophy of utilitarianism.12 According to that philosophy, one value is more important than another if acting on that value creates the greatest utilitarian consequences for the greatest number of people. A person, idea, institution or object is valuable to the extent that it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The philosophy of utilitarianism asserts that our actions ought to be guided by whether the consequences of our actions produce more good material consequences than other actions.

1705136748

1705136749 The philosophy of utilitarianism and the method of arguing based on consequences are very common in debate. Chapter 15 of this text discussed several kinds of evaluative claims. Among the most common claims in educational debate are those that assign values to objects and those that evaluate claims of policy. This section will consider how arguments of consequence can be used to support both types of claims.

1705136750

1705136751 An example of the first kind of evaluative claim is one that assigns a value to a person. Following the philosophy of utilitarianism, a person whose actions produced good consequences would be thought of as a good person, while a person whose actions lead to bad consequences might be considered a bad person. For example, the claim that “Mohandas Gandhi was one of the world’s best leaders” would be evaluated by the consequences of Gandhi’s actions. To support such a claim, a debater might use three sub-arguments as support. The first sub-argument might simply describe certain features of Gandhi’s actions. The second sub-argument would then associate those actions with certain consequences. The third sub-argument would provide an explicit evaluation of those consequences. Astute readers of this chapter will notice the descriptive, associational, and evaluative pattern as one that has been used throughout this chapter. That pattern will receive more specific attention in the upcoming chapter as well. The argument is shown in the illustration below:

1705136752

1705136753 Primary Claim: Mohandas Gandhi was one of the world’s best leaders.

1705136754

1705136755 Sub-argument 1 (Description):

1705136756

1705136757

1705136758

1705136759 Gandhi taught the method of non-violent protest.

1705136760

1705136761 Sub-argument 2 (Association):

1705136762

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136713e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]