In an article, Warren stated that “We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions” (Warren 1). This is because no one can truly know what a person 's motives are, but they can know their own intentions. It is easier to conclude an idea of a person based on what one can see and know for sure. A person can have good intentions, but the outcome may turn out unfavorable, knowing the final action is simpler to judge because it can be known for sure. Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1).
This is not a concrete correlation though as different people may come to alternate conclusions such as believing that although this is unfortunate, it may not be their problem, or it may not be similar to torture and is instead just a series of unlucky events that may eventually pass. This feeling of disgust and mental link to torture by the reader is a strong possibility, but is no guarantee. Aside from this, Gilbertson effectively evokes a painful series of images in the minds of the audience, and successfully convinces them of the abundant
In general, assessing whether an argument is a good one based on subtle changes in how you feel about a topic is accurate but in reality the argument lacks true components of an academic argument. During our course we have pined over the arguments in
However, this is not always true. It heavily depends on your choices, yes, but there are things you cannot control such as discrimination. He suddenly realized that authority figures can abuse the said power, and even unnecessarily use
Rhetorical Analysis Persuasion is the result of the combination of components driving an audience to support a position. While some techniques are effective, they can be misused, misguided, and misunderstood, generating a lack of application to society. Following the foundations of persuasion, one must develop their own credibility, use logic, and emotions. In Kobutsu Malone’s article “Narcissism and Spiritual Materialism: The New Age Legacy”, there is a noticeable lack of the rhetorical strategies, ethos, pathos, and logos, belittling the persuasive effectiveness, as well as the poor utilization of kairos and style reducing the strength of his overall argument. Within the article Malone expresses his desire for the New Age to stop materializing
Reputation is important to many people in the world, but if they value it over anything else it can actually cause more harm than good. By valuing reputation over anything else it can lead people to do things that aren’t what they should actually do, like lie to people, accuse people to preserve their own reputation and can lead to the person getting in more trouble than getting them out of
Benjamin Franklin’s suggestions about effective communication are key elements in achieving effective communication with others. As noted, the habit of getting into verbal disputes with others can cause a very pernicious effect on the conversation. This can turn a conversation that was meant to exchange information into one that can escalate into more of an altercation. If this happens then the intent of a conversation has been defeated, in which case both individuals should notice and quickly deescalate the situation. If the situation doesn’t get resolved then there is a high possibility that the conversation will result in the individuals becoming enemies rather than friends.
However, when people conform without thinking, it can lead to dangerous consequences. Often times, mindless conformity leads to senseless violence that could have been avoided with just a little more thought. In order to justify hateful and exclusive acts, the actions of people in minorities are often taken
Without a tangible “thing” to split, it could be argued that divisibility has no real meaning at all in relation to things that by their nature cannot be split. To wit, Descartes’ argument supposes that a mind divided would result in absurdity, such as two fractions of a greater mind, both with capacity to think, or in other words, two new minds, he takes this as evidence that a mind cannot be divided; but it would seem plausible also to say that this absurdity is the result of applying terms that only have meaning when applied to things with extension. In other words; a mind may well be capable of division, even if it was substantively different and separate from matter and body, thus we may conclude that Descartes cannot prove the distinction between mind and matter by ascribing notions of relative divisibility or non-divisibility to them. Additionally much of Descartes thought regarding the indivisibility of the mind is based on a preceding conception of the mind as non-physical before the argument proves
The Doctrine of Double Effect often refers to actions that have two relevant effects, in which they include: people whom we bring about, and those that we see but do not have a set goal for. This refers to the following, “Provided that your goal is worthwhile, you are sometimes permitted to act in ways that foreseeably cause certain types of harm, though you must never intend to cause such harms” (Landau, 2015, p. 224). Consequently, many people are lured by absolutism, since it is the one and only way to overcome consequentialism. To bring good in, absolutists need to portray their side and grant people the vision of previous arguable cases, without counting on hidden ‘consequentialist assumptions’. According to Alison Mclntyre, “According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end” (Mclntyre, 2014, p. 1).