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

1705136763 Gandhi’s use of non-violent action produced consequences in Ghana. Using Gandhi’s tactics, Ghana became the first African Country to break free of British rule.

1705136764

1705136765 Sub-argument 3 (Evaluation):

1705136766

1705136767 Ghanaian independence from Britain was a positive consequence. Not only did it provide a non-violent means of freeing citizens of Ghana from British rule, it also provided a model for the advancement of civil rights in the United States.

1705136768

1705136769 The argument illustrated above is one that seeks to attach a value (being one of the world’s best leaders) to an object (Mohandas Gandhi). It does so by demonstrating the consequences of the actions taken by Gandhi. The argument consists of three sub-arguments. The first sub-argument described a feature of Gandhi’s method of non-violent protest. To support that sub-argument, a debater would need to clearly describe the method of non-violence; then show how that method was central to Gandhi’s teachings. A second sub-argument in the illustration associated non-violent protest with the consequences of assisting Ghana to break free of British rule. Here, the debater would need to provide historical evidence of how Ghana broke British rule, and also would need to show how Gandhi’s method was instrumental to that consequence. The third sub-argument evaluated that consequence by showing how it produced good for the people of Ghana and the people of the United States, as well. To support that sub-argument, the debater would need to provide specific evidence showing how people’s lives in Ghana and the United States were improved. Thus, this argument is one that demonstrates how the consequences of action can be used to evaluate that action.

1705136770

1705136771 Another kind of evaluative claim discussed in Chapter 15 is a claim about policy or action. Arguments based on consequences are commonly used to support claims about policies and actions. A policy or an action is good (positively evaluated) to the extent that its positive consequences outweigh its negative ones. A claim that “Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens” is a claim of policy. A debater might support such a claim by arguing that his or her proposal to provide a minimal level of education to all citizens would have more benefits than costs. When a debater discusses benefits, he or she usually talks of direct material benefits. So, a proposal is a valuable one and is positively evaluated when its benefits outweigh its costs. The illustration presented below contains an example of a policy claim that exemplifies an argument of consequence. Debaters have at their disposal a variety of methods to construct an argument based on consequences. The illustration below shows how three sub-arguments (descriptive, associational, and evaluative) can be combined to create a primary argument about the consequences of a proposed action. In this example, the debater is proposing a policy to replace a current one. The first sub-argument describes both the current and the proposed policies. It compares and contrasts the current policy with the one the debater proposes as a replacement. The second sub-argument shows how features existing in the proposed policy, and absent in the current policy, are causally associated with certain consequences. The third and final sub-argument provides an explicit evaluation of the consequences established in the second sub-argument.

1705136772

1705136773 Motion for debate: Nations should provide a secondary education to all their citizens.

1705136774

1705136775 Primary argument: Increasing funding and infrastructure for secondary education will improve people’s lives by helping to alleviate poverty.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705136726e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]