Essay #4 Options from Contemporary & Classic Arguments in which you will use the Toulmin Argument
Option One. In the context of the essays in Chapter 5, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the death penalty is a moral abomination that must be abolished.
Option Two. In the context of the essays in Chapter 6, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the best approach to the drug crisis in America is to legalize drugs.
Option Three. In the context of the essays in Chapter 7, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the psychological problems that ensue from Facebook use are so virulent that one should be persuaded to delete his or her Facebook account.
Option Four. In the context of the essays in Chapter 8, support, refute, or complicate the argument that we lack the adequate moral adaptation to accommodate the crises born from rapid bio-technological advances.
Option Five. In the context of the essays in Chapter 9, develop an argumentative thesis for a safe, moral, and just immigration policy.
"Death and Justice" (PDF) by Edward Koch
Rebuttal in David Bruck's "The Death Penalty" (PDF)
"Executions Are Too Costly--Morally" (PDF) by Helen Prejean
Death Penalty Debate
Ed Koch: “Death and Justice How Capital Punishment Affirms Life”
Study Questions
One. Should sociopathic killers be able to lecture us on the immorality of killing them after they’ve killed?
Most serial killers are sociopaths; they have no guilt or remorse for evil.
Should sociopaths be able to live? One in twenty-five people are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are killers.
It chafes Koch’s hide that killers, after they killed and are about to be executed, suddenly become sanctimonious and lecture us on the need to have reverence for life--their life!
Sociopaths say whatever they have to say to survive. Their whole existence is based on “playing” people. Should they get to live?
While we must be concerned about false convictions, what about bona fide sociopaths, people whose entire lives have been defined by sociopathy? Should they not be executed.
But even if we concede that these evil killers are playing us, our emotional revulsion for these killers should not be the basis for deciding on death penalty policy.
Critical thinkers try to be dispassionate, base their decisions on the intellectual merits of a case and not let their emotions get in the way.
Should we kill murderers to get revenge on them? Because we hate them? Because we want to see them writhe and suffer?
Clearly, Koch is using pathos--emotional appeal--to good effect in his argument.
Two. What common arguments does Koch refute?
“The death penalty is barbaric.”
Koch argues that the death penalty is an unpleasant necessity like “radical surgery” or chemotherapy.
We are killing a cancerous tumor from our society, he seems to imply.
Let’s for the sake of argument accept the premise that serial killers won’t be deterred by the death penalty. Their cancer would continue to grow, a counter against Koch’s argument.
But Koch could say this cancer can’t kill again. Indeed, criminologists report that killers often kill again--while serving prison sentences.
Their cancer would be stopped, in defense of Koch. Fellow prisoners, civilians, and police would be spared from these repeat murderers.
“No other major democracy uses the death penalty.”
But no other country has our murder rate, Koch argues. Murder rate is indeed high for blacks and Latinos, according to a major study. Black Americans are killed at a rate of 12 times higher than in other countries.
But homicides down a third since 1990.
“An innocent person might be executed by mistake.”
Wrongful murder convictions are 4.1 percent, according to major study, so 5 out of a 100 are wrongfully convicted. That’s a lot.
Koch, who wrote his essay many years earlier, does not have these current statistics.
This is probably Koch’s weakest argument.
“Capital punishment cheapens the value of human life.”
Punishment is a measure of our respect for the victims. For example, Koch observes that lowering punishment for sexual assault lowers our respect for the victims of these crimes.
The same is true of murder.
“The death penalty is applied in a discriminatory manner.”
Koch says this is no longer a problem, decades ago when he wrote this.
But a 2014 Atlantic article says otherwise.
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Koch says the Old Testament means murder, not all killing.
“The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.”
Koch asserts that the state has rights that the individual does not.
If we do state-sanctioned executions, perhaps we should televise them.
Read “Executions Should be Televised.”
“The Death Penalty” by David Bruck
One. What faulty comparison in Koch’s does Bruck point out?
Koch would have us believe that shunning the death penalty is comparable to letting a murderer kill his victim. But the death penalty is after the fact, and the death penalty does not deter crimes of passion or crimes of sociopathy.
Koch is perhaps using cheap pathos.
Two. Does a mob cheering an executioner affirm life?
Bruck makes a compelling point that a mob cheering an execution is a depressing sight. A society that hungers for the revenge of violence and displays bloodlust is a spectacle that many would argue is not an affirmation of life, but an affirmation of our worst instincts and impulses.
Making public policy should address our intellect and moral sense, not our collective animal or mob mentality.
First Counterargument:
What about those who with informed opinion support the death penalty, want executions televised, and watch them without the kind of animalistic glee described above?
Can we thirst for justice without being revenge-seeking animals?
Second Counterargument
Not all murders are equal.
There are crimes of passion.
There are premeditated murders.
There are sadistic murders.
Is there an egregious degree of cruelty that justifies the death penalty?
Three. Is Bruck’s eye for an eye critique in second to last paragraph convincing? Explain.
Bruck make an interesting point, but his reductio ad absurdum argument is compelling or not. Explain.
“Executions Are Too Costly--Morally” by Sister Helen Prejean
One. What will compel Americans to abolish the death penalty?
If they know the truth about a practice that the government keeps secret, they will abolish it. Make the executions public, and people will stop them.
Is this true? What if Americans find entertainment value in them?
Two. What biblical argument does Sister Prejean make?
People take revenge out of context by not knowing the larger lesson of the passage. There are “entrapment” lessons in which adversaries are trying to argue and Jesus uses entrapment responses that are not to be taken literally.
Sample Thesis Responses
Clearly, death-penalty opponents make good points about how the death penalty is corrupted by racism, wrongful guilt, and the barbaric throng delighting in their appalling revenge fantasies. However, if mechanisms could be implemented to insure fair assignment of guilt and if society doesn't go down the rabbit hole of looking at capital punishment as a panacea for violent criminals, then the death penalty can be an important moral lever for exacting justice. For one, the bleeding-heart fantasy that all human life is sacred does not hold up to the unpleasant truth that evil sociopaths are not worthy of living. For two, a dead sociopath cannot kill again. For three, society must brandish a moral demarcation line that explicitly says to the citizenry that certain types of vile behavior will not be tolerated.
Sample Counterargument
While even I, a die-hard liberal, have fantasies of inflicting death upon cruel and heartless murderers, I know that my primal impulse for revenge cannot fuel public policy. Whatever benefits gained from the above proposal, surely the death penalty would wreak more harm than benefit. The death penalty will prevent us from looking at preventative measures to impede violence. Executions will exacerbate our penchant for spite and revenge. The innocent will go to their deaths only to be found to be exonerated long after they have rotted in their graves. And our beloved criminal justice bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, will too often botch the execution with the wrong cocktail of lethal drugs, malfunctioning death machines, and other forms of imbecilic hackery, turning the death ritual into a grotesque farcical spectacle making a mockery of our quest to implement justice.
Second Counterargument
As long as the death penalty is corrupted by racism and wrong convictions, the only moral thing to do is replace capital punishment with a life of solitary confinement, a punishment, it could be argued, that is far worse than death. Such a punishment isolates the killer so he can't kill again and it makes the charged available for release in the unlikely event that he is proven innocent.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Comments