I was thinking this morning about the weird irony of two big protests that were held in Washington, D.C. this past weekend and how the messages being sent seemed paradoxical.
The first was the annual March for Life, and their protesting against abortion rights, among other issues.
Here is their purpose in their own words (from their website):
The right to life is a human right. Our defense of that right is a joyful witness to the beauty and dignity of every human person.
The March for Life is an inspiring, peaceful, vibrant, and joy-filled rally of women, men, young people, and children from all across the country. Every year, tens of thousands of pro-lifers converge on the National Mall and march on Capitol Hill on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which legalized abortion in all 50 states. It’s the largest annual human rights demonstration in the world. But this is not just a protest… TOGETHER, WE GATHER TO CELEBRATE LIFE. We celebrate each and every life, from the moment of conception. We envision a world where every life is celebrated, valued, and protected.
I will simply note that celebrating the beauty and dignity of every human (I'm not sure what a "human person" is, exactly) seems like a great thing. Not as great a thing (from my POV) is that the march demanded that government create or modify laws and sanctions that punish those who don't meet the group's definition of "right to life."
Hours later an anti-vaccine rally was held in the same basic location. The crowd's numbers were smaller -- they haven't had years of tradition to build bigger crowds -- but the basic message was that government should stay out of people's lives and decision-making. Some speakers were clearly wackos who doubt basic science while other claimed to be fine with vaccines but violently opposed to mandates of any kind.
The paradox was that many of the same people either attended BOTH rallies or at least support their basic views. Those views can be roughly summed up as asking for government to regulate abortion (seeking to end it altogether) while simultaneously arguing that government keep its regulations away from regulating or mandating vaccines, and thus depriving Americans of choice.
A consistent philosophical position might be that government needs to keep out of ALL personal decisions in American lives, but humans are rarely consistent and often find themselves holding diametrically opposing views about life and government. The logical paradox is simply ignored.
This human tendency can lead to muddy argument writing, of course, since logos is so important in developing a clear claim with strong support. Arguments that rely almost entirely on pathos (emotions) are not convincing in the long term.
The new semester is already a week old and I am sure I will be confronted by all sorts of logical fallacies in student writing... I always do.
That doesn't make students poor writers. It might simply indicate that complex issues do not lend themselves to simple solutions.
One of my class rules, for many years, has been to "act right" while in class. In general, people know how to "act right." Otherwise our lives would be complete chaos. But it's in the specifics and the unusual or emotional that "acting right" can become food for debate.
Most people would agree generally with the idea that we should do what we can to get along with one another, for instance. "Do unto others... etc."
But some issues -- and abortion and "personal freedom" seem to be two -- don't lend themselves to connecting people.
That's why I always urge writers to avoid those sorts of issues in their academic arguments. Or holiday dinner tables.
No comments:
Post a Comment