No Argument
I share the conceit of most philosophers that good arguments matter.
So, I assign students in my applied ethics courses essays that defend positions through the use of reasoned discourse. Typically the authors of these pieces eschew personal anecdotes—and usually even specific examples—but proceed instead by appealing to theoretical principles and thought experiments.
But talking to students today, (trying to figure out why so few of them seem to be doing the readings), I learned that most find these sorts of arguments to be singularly unpersuasive.
It’s not just that they find the “intellectual” approach difficult to follow (although that, too); it’s that they tend to not be engaged by it.
“I want stories about real people,” said one student.
“I want a variety of perspectives that show me why people think the way they do,” said another.
All this is rather surprising, especially since it became clear to me that what's meant is what, as philosophers, we tend to discourage focusing on: instead of justification, they want explanation.
Students (and I generalize here) don’t care nearly as much about the warrant that writers have for the positions they hold as they do about the experiences that writers have had that lead them to hold those positions.
I wonder if that’s why, for instance, post 9/11, so many people got so upset when anybody proposed that we try to understand why the terrorists committed those acts: the distinction between justification and explanation is simply not made—in fact, explanation is offered AS justification.
The most common argument that I heard in our discussion today was something like, “Well, I (or my people) did it this way, so other people should, too.”
That really makes me think that for many students, it all comes down to experience.
And if that’s the case, why am I wasting my time and theirs having them read arguments?
Shouldn’t I just bring in guest speakers and leave it at that?
So, I assign students in my applied ethics courses essays that defend positions through the use of reasoned discourse. Typically the authors of these pieces eschew personal anecdotes—and usually even specific examples—but proceed instead by appealing to theoretical principles and thought experiments.
But talking to students today, (trying to figure out why so few of them seem to be doing the readings), I learned that most find these sorts of arguments to be singularly unpersuasive.
It’s not just that they find the “intellectual” approach difficult to follow (although that, too); it’s that they tend to not be engaged by it.
“I want stories about real people,” said one student.
“I want a variety of perspectives that show me why people think the way they do,” said another.
All this is rather surprising, especially since it became clear to me that what's meant is what, as philosophers, we tend to discourage focusing on: instead of justification, they want explanation.
Students (and I generalize here) don’t care nearly as much about the warrant that writers have for the positions they hold as they do about the experiences that writers have had that lead them to hold those positions.
I wonder if that’s why, for instance, post 9/11, so many people got so upset when anybody proposed that we try to understand why the terrorists committed those acts: the distinction between justification and explanation is simply not made—in fact, explanation is offered AS justification.
The most common argument that I heard in our discussion today was something like, “Well, I (or my people) did it this way, so other people should, too.”
That really makes me think that for many students, it all comes down to experience.
And if that’s the case, why am I wasting my time and theirs having them read arguments?
Shouldn’t I just bring in guest speakers and leave it at that?
posted by Professor Dave at 8:28 AM
2 Comments:
The most common argument that I heard in our discussion today was something like, “Well, I (or my people) did it this way, so other people should, too.”
That is frightful. Based on that reasoning:
We keep slaves so others should too.
We take what we want from other ships in the sea and that's the way it should be.
My wife is mine to treat as I will.
We kick the ass of any dope smokin hippie faggot we find, all good, true Americans should too.
Is no fallacy too apparent?
The sort of funny thing--if you want to call it funny--is that there is also a high level of tolerance; so even though most students make judgments based on a pretty self-centered perspective, they're also, by and large, totally ho-hum about what other people want to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home