Sociology
Book Review
Critical thinking is crucial for navigating through the numerous arguments people come across in daily life- in the form of advertisements, political speeches and even college level debates. Capaldi and Smit provide an essential handbook for readers to identify arguments, analyze them, present cases, attack arguments, defend cases and undertake cause-and effect reasoning.
The very foundation of modern discourse rests on identifying arguments. It is necessary that people identify the premises and conclusions of arguments through their context, instead of grammatical location in sentences. The authors highlight the concept of interlocking arguments, where a conclusion acts as a premise in another argument in the same passage .The authors introduce the readers to Aristotelian logic, which is epistemological in character. The concept of categorical syllogisms (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.15) forms the basis of further analysis of arguments. The authors explain the rules for valid syllogisms. Of critical importance is the fact that “when an argument is valid but at least one of its premises is false, the argument is said to be unsound”, and highlight how “valid arguments may yet be unsound, being based on false premises” (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.15). A study of the structure of syllogisms, premises and common fallacies is essential to uncover ethical constructs in everyday life (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.26).
Capaldi and Smit expose the readers to techniques of how to make a convincing case: by appeal to sympathy (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.35), skillful presentation of facts, and by driving home the conclusion desired. They take the reader through the steps required to attack an argument (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.138), highlighting “ad hominem” (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p.184), (attacking the person) and the use of genetic fallacies such as age and experience to undermine the opponent’s arguments. They provide detailed rhetorical constructs to refute appeals to pity, authority, precedents, statistics, theoretical constructs, classifications, definitions and analogies, and highlight the importance of attacking the opponent’s conclusions. The importance of understanding the audience while defending one’s case cannot be overstated. It is equally important for people to understand that while causality is often invoked as ‘magical authority’ (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p. 219), it can nevertheless be manipulated in debate.
The book provides the lay reader a comprehensive framework upon which to build an understanding of the messages and arguments being advanced in the world of politics and commerce. The critical thinking skills put forth would enable readers in their quest to take ethical decisions. Further, an analysis of the ethics behind arguments put forward in the business world would provide an appropriate beginning for readers to commence their lifelong journey in the art of dissecting, defending and attacking arguments.
Employing Critical Thinking Skills towards Ethical Decision Making
Acting ethically is the right thing to do. However, ethical decision-making may not always be clear-cut. It may involve choosing between the lesser of two evils. To take ethical decisions, people require commitment, a consciousness of applying moral convictions, and the ability to collect and evaluate information (UCSD, 2016).
It is the realm of collection and evaluation of information that critical thinking skills would help people to arrive at ethical decisions. For instance, there is the utilitarian argument that a lie told in the overall interest is ethically acceptable. In contrast, Kant argues that what is wrong is wrong, regardless of payoffs and consequences (Shaw, 2014). Critical thinking would be necessary to take a position on the ethics of a case, and argue for or against utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. Deconstructing utilitarian ethics, the argument would have two premises. The first premise would be that people would benefit if there were more food in the world. The second premise would be that eliminating the population of a small country would increase per capita food. This would lead to the conclusion that it was ethically proper to eliminate the population of a small country for the larger benefit of the balance worldwide population.
It would take critical thinking to understand that while the argument is valid, it is not sound. It is built upon the “suppressed premise” (Capaldi & Smit, 2007, p. 23) that the elimination of the population of a small country would be any country except the readers’. There is another hidden premise that the value of life of the people who are taking this decision matters more than the value of those being eliminated. It is for readers to be aware of hidden premises so as to be able to understand ethical conundrums in the right context, and to take a reasoned stand in line with ethical principles thereafter. Identifying practical ethical issues in the world would further highlight the importance of critical thinking.
Identifying Ethical Issues
Radioactive Waste Disposal
While the use of nuclear power has an independent set of arguments for and against, there is a separate set of arguments surrounding the waste disposal of radioactive material. Environmental engineers acknowledge the need to keep operational doses from waste handling low, and the need to construct fail-safe storage facilities for radioactive waste. However, what is left unsaid is the fact that radioactive waste peaks in radioactivity thousands of years later. The impact on future generations of such waste is not calculated (McCombie, n.d.). Critical thinking of the issue would show that the following argument in favor of storing radioactive waste is built on two premises. The first premise is that radioactive waste is bad for health. The second premise is that current and future generations must be saved from radioactive waste degeneration. The resulting conclusion is that radioactive waste must be stored adequately to prevent damage to current and future generations.
While the argument is sound, it hides an unsaid premise, which is that storage techniques are adequately developed to withstand radioactive effects emanating from radioactive waste in future. It is this aspect of engineering that is open to debate. The fact that radioactivity will peak in future only serves to highlight the criticality of ensuring failsafe engineering of waste disposal facilities. Those who argue against storage of radioactive waste would use the generalization in their argument: ‘it is impossible to guarantee engineering safeguards for the thousands of years the radioactivity would continue.’ Those who argue for radioactive storage could use statistics to counter this charge and say: ‘statistically, the chances of leakage from radioactive storage facilities is one in a thousand million.’ Once again, what is implied in this argument is that ‘it is alright to expose future generations to one in a thousand million chance of destruction, as against the immediate gain of nuclear energy and medical advancement to current generations’. It is for the moral code of the reader to weigh the definite advantages of immediate gain versus minute probabilities of future annihilation. Through the entire process, it is critical thinking that lays bare the hidden assumptions and premises.
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering is widely acknowledged as the frontier of science and engineering. It consists of isolating genes, and modifying them so that they can be transferred into and function within a new organism. Alternatively, some ‘defective’ genes can be removed from an organism (Glenn, 2013). The intent professed by genetic engineers is multifarious, and includes altruistic goals such as the creation of resilient foodgrains to arrive at global food security, and even the removal of the causes of deadly diseases like cancer.
While there are numerous ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering, one major concern surrounds the issue of the fundamental aspect of creation of new species. Opponents of genetic engineering argue that natural evolution is a time-tested process. Creating new species in the laboratory can never be as failsafe as natural evolution. Critical thinking will reveal that this argument is based on a generalization about the primacy of natural evolution. As such, this generalization cannot be argued against. However, there is a hidden premise in the argument against genetic engineering: ‘It is unwise to tinker with nature’. Proponents of genetic engineering would need to focus on this aspect, and highlight and the field of engineering, since times immemorial, has always attempted to alter the forces of nature in favor of man. Vehicles, communication technologies and space travel have provided frameworks that were never available to man if he relied merely on his innate physical attributes. Therefore, the premise of being unwise to tinker with nature could be opposed with statistics about how past engineering feats have transformed mankind.
Conclusion
Every message that travels in the airwaves today contains arguments. Advertisements contain arguments to entice consumers. Social engineers put forth arguments for and against technological advancements. Ethics is involved in every argument. It is through critical thinking that people can uncover the premises in arguments, and lay bare the truths in such premises. Because modern technology creates ethical issues that are neither purely black nor purely white, it is for a critical thinker to discern the relative shades of black and white and highlight the ethical standpoint behind every debate.
References
Capaldi, N. & Smit, M. (2007). The art of deception: an introduction to critical thinking. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Glenn, L. M. (2013). Ethical issues in genetic engineering and transgenics. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/glenn.html
McCombie, C. (n.d.) Ethical aspects of long-lived waste disposal. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.irpa.net/irpa9/cdrom/VOL.1/V1_44.PDF
Shaw, W.H. (2014). Business ethics. Boston, MA: Cengage.
