Summary: 1. There are 4 elements to an argument: A debatable claim (Thesis), Evidence, Reasoning, An attempt to persuade. 2.1 Thesis = expressed opinion or the arguer's conclusion. 2.2. Evidence = a) facts/conditions objectively observable, b) generally accepted beliefs/statements by the audience, or c) conclusions previously accepted. 2.3 Reasoning = rational link between evidence and thesis. inductive or deductive 2.4 Attempt to Persuade = argument in the context of disagreement. 3. The evidence must be below the level of dispute, and the reasoning valid, to link the evidence to the thesis
You made a bad arguement within this presentation yourself. Saying if the dead aborted baby in their hands was persuasive the nurses would quit their jobs is a horrible argument. There are people who smoke who know that smoking is objectively bad for them, there were jews who helped Nazis in deathcamps who knew what they were doing was wrong, there are doctors who eat fast food that they know is bad for them. You're right that the picture itself is not persuasive without reasoning, but your own reasoning as to why is incorrect as well.
This claim rests largely on empirical evidence. The question of motivation is a very widely debated topic (as people are often not the best judges of their motives), and while you draw some convincing analogies, there is some relevant difference in nursing and demerit good consumption (i.e. smoking, eating fast food, etc.), namely that the nature of nursing is very ethically bound: a) most nurses choose nursing for ethical/moral reasons (contestable empirical claim), and thus the nature of the actors is different to both Nazis and the average smoker/fast food consumer. b) a very large, fundamental aspect of day-to-day work is underpinned by ethical concerns (duty of care, QOL as judgement parameter, etc.), and thus the nature of the action is motivated by different concerns, compared to both demerit good consumption and Nazi killings. c) ongoing demerit good consumption can be largely accounted for by either a) habitual dependence or b) lack of information, while nursing decisions re: abortion are not bound by either of these factors: nurses do not depend on aborting embryos to 'feel normal', nor are they unaware of their actions. I think these aspects draw a strong disanalogy between the argument made in the video, and your rebuttal. However, these factors in mind, I still do believe there is some validity in your point about knowledge not necessarily translating to action, especially in morally ambiguous cases such as abortion, and where the source of ethical compliance is institutionally determined (i.e. from the hospital, code of conduct, etc.)
This was really great and obviously explained to understand. I rather enjoyed it. Thank you.
I'm using this for my 10th ELA class in a unit on Margaret Edson's play Wit & the Metaphysical Poets. Thank you posting this!
Thank you for this lesson.
Summary:
1. There are 4 elements to an argument: A debatable claim (Thesis), Evidence, Reasoning, An attempt to persuade.
2.1 Thesis = expressed opinion or the arguer's conclusion.
2.2. Evidence = a) facts/conditions objectively observable, b) generally accepted beliefs/statements by the audience, or c) conclusions previously accepted.
2.3 Reasoning = rational link between evidence and thesis. inductive or deductive
2.4 Attempt to Persuade = argument in the context of disagreement.
3. The evidence must be below the level of dispute, and the reasoning valid, to link the evidence to the thesis
You made a bad arguement within this presentation yourself. Saying if the dead aborted baby in their hands was persuasive the nurses would quit their jobs is a horrible argument. There are people who smoke who know that smoking is objectively bad for them, there were jews who helped Nazis in deathcamps who knew what they were doing was wrong, there are doctors who eat fast food that they know is bad for them. You're right that the picture itself is not persuasive without reasoning, but your own reasoning as to why is incorrect as well.
This claim rests largely on empirical evidence. The question of motivation is a very widely debated topic (as people are often not the best judges of their motives), and while you draw some convincing analogies, there is some relevant difference in nursing and demerit good consumption (i.e. smoking, eating fast food, etc.), namely that the nature of nursing is very ethically bound:
a) most nurses choose nursing for ethical/moral reasons (contestable empirical claim), and thus the nature of the actors is different to both Nazis and the average smoker/fast food consumer.
b) a very large, fundamental aspect of day-to-day work is underpinned by ethical concerns (duty of care, QOL as judgement parameter, etc.), and thus the nature of the action is motivated by different concerns, compared to both demerit good consumption and Nazi killings.
c) ongoing demerit good consumption can be largely accounted for by either a) habitual dependence or b) lack of information, while nursing decisions re: abortion are not bound by either of these factors: nurses do not depend on aborting embryos to 'feel normal', nor are they unaware of their actions.
I think these aspects draw a strong disanalogy between the argument made in the video, and your rebuttal.
However, these factors in mind, I still do believe there is some validity in your point about knowledge not necessarily translating to action, especially in morally ambiguous cases such as abortion, and where the source of ethical compliance is institutionally determined (i.e. from the hospital, code of conduct, etc.)