1705136812
19.2 Evaluation Based on Principles of Duties and Rights
1705136813
1705136814
A related way to make evaluative arguments involves appealing to universal principles. Such method, grounded in morals and ethics, is associated with the philosophy of deontology, a philosophy that seeks to link the evaluation of one’s action to duties or rights. One of the clearest deontologists was philosopher Immanuel Kant. Deontology, unlike utilitarianism, evaluates a good (or bad) action using certain principles involving duties and rights rather than the consequences of the action. Thus, a good action is one that is in accord with important principles rather than with consequences (Kant, 2002).
1705136815
1705136816
How does one know when an act is in accord with certain duties and rights? Deontological normative theory is a kind of formal, deductive logic that philosophers might use to answer this question. Without resorting to formal deductive argument, the question can be answered in less formal but more practical ways. For instance, if an act and its essence (its definition) coexist, one might say that the act is in accord with the principle on which the essence of the object exists. To put this more simply, a freedom fighter is a person whose acts correspond with the essence of a freedom fighter. In other words, the coexistence of the object and its essence is indicative of the principle toward which the object ought to be aimed. For instance, one might argue that two features define the essence of a freedom fighter: 1) fighting against a repressive regime; and 2) doing so for the cause of the larger community. Assuming that the audience sees these two features as positive moral values, they serve as principles by which the acts of a group described as “freedom fighters” can be evaluated. Any group of people engaging in the two acts (fighting against a repressive regime for the cause of a larger community) is following a positive moral principle that might be called “fighting for freedom.”
1705136817
1705136818
Another practical method of arguing for a principle involves arguing by analogy. For instance, if one group of people can be said to be acting on a certain principle, a second group who are doing essentially the same acts will also be following that principle. For instance, if a debater selects a group of people whom the audience already believes is acting on a particular principle, and then shows that a second group also acts in an essentially similar way, the debater can argue that the second group is also acting on the principle. The debater might start with a group of “freedom fighters” that the audience evaluates positively. Depending on the audience, that group might be the Viet Cong or the American Revolutionary War Soldiers.13 The debater would then describe the essential features of the first group (fighting against repression for the good of the larger community) then compare the first group to a second group, the Grand Alliance in World War II, for instance. To the extent that the Grand Alliance acts on the same principles as the Viet Cong or American Revolutionary Soldiers, then the Grand Alliance can arguably be said to be following the same principle—fighting for freedom.
1705136819
1705136820
Regarding this approach of evaluating actions according to principles rather than consequences, Harvard philosopher, Michael J. Sandel, writes: “The second approach says that consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of social consequences” (2010: 33). Principled arguments focus on the inherent rightness or wrongness of values and actions. One set of values is better than another if that set of values conforms to universal principles of rightness and wrongness. Similarly, people, ideas, institutions and objects are evaluated based on the universal principles. People who argue based on universal principles believe that our actions are guided by how well those actions correspond to universal principles.
1705136821
1705136822
Earlier, arguments by consequences were used to argue in favor of two kinds of evaluative claims: those that assign values to objects, and those that evaluate policies or actions. Principled arguments can also support these kinds of claims, as well. To begin, an argument of principle can be used to assign a value to an object. Earlier, the claim that Mohandas Gandhi was one of the world’s greatest leaders was used as an example to show how an argument by consequence would function. The same claim can now be applied to an argument by principle. Again, several ways of organizing such an argument exist, but one common way is to support the primary argument with two sub-arguments. First, a sub-argument is used to demonstrate why the principle is an important one. Second, a sub-argument is created to show how the object to be evaluated is consistent with the principle, right, or duty. The illustration below uses the same example about Gandhi to show how an argument by principle can function.
1705136823
1705136824
Primary Argument: Mohandas Gandhi was one of the world’s greatest leaders.
1705136825
1705136826
·Sub-argument 1:
1705136827
1705136828
1705136829
1705136830
Non-violence is one of the most important principles the world has ever known.
1705136831
1705136832
·Sub-argument 2:
1705136833
1705136834
Mohandas Gandhi employed civil disobedience throughout his life. His method of civil disobedience supports the principle of non-violence.
1705136835
1705136836
In the above illustration, the first sub-argument suggests that the principle of non-violence is an important one. Of course, the debater would need to provide careful reasoning and evidence to support this sub-argument. Why is non-violence an important principle? Is it somehow related to another principle that is universally accepted? Is non-violence essential to the human condition? The second sub-argument then relates the principle to the object to be evaluated. To support that sub-argument, a debater would need to describe the feature of Gandhi that is related to the principle. In the instant case, the debater would need to explain Gandhi’s method of civil disobedience and why civil disobedience is associated with the principle of non-violence. In general, the overall goal of the argument is to move the audience to viewing the object (Gandhi) in the same positive manner that they view the principle (non-violence).
1705136837
1705136838
The illustration presented above shows how an argument of principle can be used to support a claim that applies a value (the principle of non-violence) to an object (Mohandas Gandhi). An argument by principle also can be used to support the evaluation of a policy or action. Earlier, an argument of consequence was illustrated to support the claim that “All governments have a duty to provide education for their citizens.” The same claim can be supported using an argument of principle. The claim is supported by a combination of several sub-arguments. In that case, the first sub-argument supports the existence of the principle that will be used in the evaluation. The second sub-argument then describes the actions that later will be evaluated according to the principle. It explains the features of the current and proposed actions, and how those features are related to the principle itself. Finally, the third sub-argument shows how the principle, duty, or right is fulfilled by the proposed action. That kind of sub-argument is illustrated below:
1705136839
1705136840
Motion for debate: Nations should provide a minimal level of education to all their citizens.
1705136841
1705136842
Primary argument: All governments have the duty to provide education for their citizens.
1705136843
1705136844
1705136845
1705136846
·Sub-argument 1:
1705136847
1705136848
Access to education is a right of citizens and a duty of the government to provide.
1705136849
1705136850
￭ Access to education is a right of all citizens.
1705136851
1705136852
￭ Providing access to education is the duty of government.
1705136853
1705136854
·Sub-argument 2:
1705136855
1705136856
The Government Team’s proposal substantially changes the policies of the current system.
1705136857
1705136858
￭ The current policies of nations of Sub-Saharan Africa provide insufficient funding and infrastructure to education.
1705136859
1705136860
￭ The Government Team’s model provides both funding and infrastructure.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705136811e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]