In response to Avery's Analysis and Feeling (found here)I would contend that emotion does play an initial role in what course one will take in their argumentation. It is necessary to feel out what ones initial opinions are on the subject, but emotional attachment needs to be completely shed when thinking rational. In short I agree with Avery.
One of the most striking examples is found in the response I have observed to Peter Singer's 'Singer Solution to World Poverty.' Where he outlines a case where it is the moral duty for everyone to give up a significant amount of their worldly wealth in order to help those humans in need around the world.
I read this in College Writing II, and what was fascinating was that while no one could come up with a reasonable counter response, everyone in the class was against his philosophy. People simply did not want to give up all of their excess money and goods like Singer suggested, and even while they could not develop a response they were firmly against.
That's an interesting example. It's a really good example to display how societal influence over the course of all of an individual's life can heavily influence someone's view on something. I must admit, however, that if they thought critically for a while they could have come up with a few reasons why Singer's philosophy is not necessarily reasonable, or even overall favorable.
ReplyDelete