1705132984 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132299]

1705132985 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Chapter 2Ethical Considerations in Debate

1705132986

1705132987 Robert Trapp

1705132988

1705132989 Chapter Outline

1705132990

1705132991 2.1 The Ethical Debater

1705132992

1705132993 2.2 Four Features of Debate

1705132994

1705132995 2.3 Some Guidelines for Developing a Code of Ethics in Debate

1705132996

1705132997 2.4 Summary

1705132998

1705132999 2.5 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 2

1705133000

1705133001 2.6 Discussion Questions for Chapter 2

1705133002

1705133003 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132300]

1705133004 2.1 The Ethical Debater

1705133005

1705133006 To debate well means to debate ethically. Throughout the centuries, philosophers, speakers and thinkers from both China and the United States have unequivocally declared that any excellent speaker cannot, by definition, be exceptional without operating from a high moral character adhering to an enduring, ethical code of conduct.

1705133007

1705133008 For example, Chinese philosopher Mencius, who was himself an excellent speaker dismayed by the trickery and manipulation used by traveling advisors to the kings, declared that sincere speech(chengyan) was “the most effective, moral, and humane mode of expression to accomplish persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Similarly, Roman orator Marcus Fabius Quintilian explicitly taught that while the orator must have knowledge of how to speak well and must achieve an artistic excellence in those skills, “the orator in Quintilian’s view must, above all, be a good man [or woman]” (Kennedy, 1999: 101). As debaters grapple with disputations, they are charged with a vital social responsibility for delineating the best arguments for and against essential civic issues. That social responsibility demands highly ethical practices to ensure the prosperity, growth, and sustenance of a society.

1705133009

1705133010 Acting in ethical ways as a speaker and using ethical speech not only fulfills a social responsibility but also inherently supports an arguer’s purpose to persuade. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, names ethos as the character of the speaker, a character making the speaker “worthy of belief; for as a rule we trust men [and women] of probity more, and more quickly…”(Cooper, 1960: 8). Similarly, “according to The Analects,” one of Confucius’s four components of curriculum was xing, the practice and conducts of morality (Lu, 1998: 166).

1705133011

1705133012 Xing Lu writes, “For Mencius, chengyan referred not only to sincere and honest speech, but also to an innate moral quality out of which sincere and honest speech naturally and powerfully arise in our efforts to influence one another… Therefore, [Mencius’s] understanding of chengyan was similar to Aristotle’s notion of ethos, in that chengyan is an indication of ethos and serves as the most effective means of persuasion” (Lu, 1998: 175). Exhortations that arguers practice morality and ethics can be found across both Eastern and Western traditions.

1705133013

1705133014 Since ethics is a philosophy or system of morality and good conduct, arguers strive to improve their debating skills by developing habits to practice principles of ethical debating. Debaters can examine their own behavioral choices to discover unethical patterns they recognize and replace those practices with more ethical ones. Toward reducing unethical actions, debaters may usefully conceptualize debate as both making argumentation choices and making choices about how to communicate with others.

1705133015

1705133016 One key to constructing and delivering an ethical argument lies in the distinction between 1) the topics and arguments constituting the debate and 2) the persons participating in the debate. Arguing the merits of one position or the discrepancies in another’s argument differs sharply from arguing to discredit or demean another speaker or another debate participant. Often these particular unethical and destructive practices occur because the offending speaker or team is not well prepared or does not yet possess the skill to squarely address the topics. An ethical debater can provide a spirited and animated argument, case, or rebuttal regarding the topic without debasing other individuals in the debate.

1705133017

1705133018 In the next section, the authors describe some of the essential features of debate and discuss the moral purposes of those features.

1705133019

1705133020 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132301]

1705133021 2.2 Four Features of Debate

1705133022

1705133023 How does one decide what are the ethical and unethical actions associated with debate—or with any other activity for that matter? One way is to examine the various features of an activity and assess those features in terms of moral purpose. The four features chosen for discussion in this section are not the only characteristics of debate nor do they represent all consideration of ethical conduct, however, these four features were selected by the authors as among the most important and the most salient: 1) communicating responsibly with others; 2) using arguments to solve disagreements; 3) using an adjudicator when participants are unable to solve their differences; and 4) reaching an outcome to a conflict. As a way to focus on some ethics of debate, each of these four features will be explained in terms of its moral purpose both to the activity and to the process of decision-making.

1705133024

1705133025 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132302]

1705133026 2.2.1 Communicating Responsibly with Others

1705133027

1705133028 Communicating with other people is an essential feature of debate. Without communication, debate is not possible. During preparation for, participation in, and debriefing after a debate, debaters communicate interpersonally with their school team members, their partners, their coaches and teachers, their judges, and students or officials from other schools. That interpersonal communication, like the public speaking performances within a formal debate, consists of a communicator purposefully choosing messages and intending to influence one or more others. Both the actions of choosing messages and the intentions of influencing others represent keys in this communication process and carry ethical implications.

1705133029

1705133030 Communicating responsibly with others is one of the high moral purposes of debate. A person can communicate responsibly with others by considering the other person to be an equal partner in the communication process rather than an object to be overcome. Showing respect for each other does not mean compromising positions or deferring to the values of the other perspective.

1705133031

1705133032 Responsible communicators value their own reasoning and evidence. They also view others as persons whose reasoning and evidence occupy that same critical value to the other person. Both sets of reasoning and evidence constitute specific and unique features, the combination of which will make up the substance of this debate. For that reason alone—that is, the better the clash between ideas in the debate, the more information and understanding can emerge about the topic—the moral purpose of the debate activity requires debaters to act in ethical ways. Whether or not debaters agree with others’ positions or reasoning has no bearing on the respect all debaters deserve from one another in the communication process. Communicating respectfully under all debate circumstances with all participants constitutes an essential ethical standard as a way to uphold the moral purpose of this feature.

1705133033

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705132984e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]