Today we discussed the rest of Peter Singer's argument.
During World Poverty Part 1 we put together a list of concerns about Singer's argument. They were:
1. We don't think the money we donate will actually reach the needy.
2. Most people don't donate their money, why should we?
3. So I'm never supposed to have fun again?
Being a good arguer, Singer had already anticipated these concerns and addressed them in the second part of the essay.
1. (We don't think the money we donate will actually reach the needy.) The $200 estimate was made with the knowledge that there are sometimes dictators that hijack supply planes, administrative costs, embezzlement, etc. All of those eventualities were accounted for in the $200 estimate.
2. (Most people don't donate their money, why should we?) Basing your morality on other people's morality is fallacious. It's called following the crowd. You alone are responsible for your own morality.
3. (So I'm never supposed to have fun again?) Think about it this way. Every $200 you spend over your needs could have saved a child. What is more valuable, $200 or the life of a child. At the beginning of the argument you agreed with me that the life of a child is not only more valuable than $200 but more valuable than a million dollar car. Life is more important than stuff. Therefore, every time you spend money on a luxury, you have chosen to not save a child's life.
During the course of our discussions the main concern we voiced that Singer was unable to answer was: "Give me the hard numbers. Show me that my money will make it to the needy." Since Singer was writing for The New Yorker, he wasn't anticipating an audience that would want lots of numbers to go through. Had he been writing for a more academic publication he certainly would have included the numbers.
The most interesting thing about the discussion to me was that everyone in the room agreed that a life was more important than stuff (and that, by extension, a life was more important than $200), but that everyone fought against applying that principle in a practical way. No one was willing to forgo their X-box or their new prom dress to save a life.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
New Reading Day By-laws
To help you all take better advantage of reading days, I am instituting the following by-laws:
1. One reading day = 10 points. This means that if you don't read during a reading day, the points you can get on your book report decreases by 10 points.
2. You must read the book you are going to report on during reading time.
3. People who do not want to read during reading day will write essays instead.
These new by-laws go into effect immediately and will apply to the next book report.
1. One reading day = 10 points. This means that if you don't read during a reading day, the points you can get on your book report decreases by 10 points.
2. You must read the book you are going to report on during reading time.
3. People who do not want to read during reading day will write essays instead.
These new by-laws go into effect immediately and will apply to the next book report.
World Poverty Part 1
Tuesday we read and discussed a few pages of Peter Singer's essay 
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty," which you can read by clicking on the link.
In the essay he gives us the story of Dora,
"Should Dora go save the child?"he asks. To which we replied, "Of course." Then he continues, "Is there a moral difference between Dora buying a television at the cost of a child's life, and an American buying a television when he knows that the money he will spend on the television will save a child's life?"
Pretty much everyone in the class thought there was a huge difference. Encapsulated, most of us argued that we are not aiding the killing of children through our purchase the way Dora did.
Singer then gives us the parable of Bob and his Bugatti.
Pretty much the whole class thought Bob had done the wrong thing. Many of us said we would not be able to live with ourselves if we had committed such an act. "If you have the chance to save a child, you should," we argued.
And that's where Peter Singer gets us. He tells us that it takes only $200 to save a child's life in a third-world country and then gives us the phone numbers of two organizations that we can donate to.
Singer has essentially put us in the role of Bob. We are standing at the railroad switch whenever we have $200 above and beyond our needs. Every time we spend $200 on a commodity, we are letting a child die.
The reaction to Singer's idea was pretty unanimous. No one in class liked it. "What?" we were saying, "you mean that we can't buy books or a new CD or a computer game because to do so would mean that we're deliberately letting a kid die?" Most of us were unwilling to live under the weight of this moral onus.
We'll see how our discussion continues next week.
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty," which you can read by clicking on the link.In the essay he gives us the story of Dora,
"Dora is a retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people. Suddenly she has an opportunity to pocket $1,000. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given. (She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreigners.) She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted — he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation."
"Should Dora go save the child?"he asks. To which we replied, "Of course." Then he continues, "Is there a moral difference between Dora buying a television at the cost of a child's life, and an American buying a television when he knows that the money he will spend on the television will save a child's life?"
Pretty much everyone in the class thought there was a huge difference. Encapsulated, most of us argued that we are not aiding the killing of children through our purchase the way Dora did.
Singer then gives us the parable of Bob and his Bugatti.
Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is running down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed -- but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti and the financial security it represents.
Pretty much the whole class thought Bob had done the wrong thing. Many of us said we would not be able to live with ourselves if we had committed such an act. "If you have the chance to save a child, you should," we argued.
And that's where Peter Singer gets us. He tells us that it takes only $200 to save a child's life in a third-world country and then gives us the phone numbers of two organizations that we can donate to.
If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and saved the child's life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations listed above.
Singer has essentially put us in the role of Bob. We are standing at the railroad switch whenever we have $200 above and beyond our needs. Every time we spend $200 on a commodity, we are letting a child die.
The reaction to Singer's idea was pretty unanimous. No one in class liked it. "What?" we were saying, "you mean that we can't buy books or a new CD or a computer game because to do so would mean that we're deliberately letting a kid die?" Most of us were unwilling to live under the weight of this moral onus.
We'll see how our discussion continues next week.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Weak Logos
Today we watched a clip from The Awful Truth where Michael Moore tries to get presidential candidates to jump in a mosh pit in order to get the show's endorsement. He goes from candidate to candidate without any luck until he meets up with Alan Keyes who does indeed body surf on the mosh pit.
We decided that Moore's thesis was that a person who was willing to dive into a mosh pit would make a good president.
Moore's ethos was right on for most of the classes. We tended to like Moore's "normal guy" ethos. He doesn't dress well, he's not too handsome, he's kinda big, but he doesn't seem to care. Many students said they identified with him more, and trusted him more because of this ethos. Other students were completely turned off by him, however.
Moore made good use of pathos as well, bringing in music from Rage Against the Machine to get our blood pumping, and structuring the show along good storytelling lines ending with the victory of getting Alan Keyes to jump into the pit. He also encouraged our disdain of all the candidates who were too stuck up to jump in.
It was Moore's logos that seemed to suffer. Though he presented a clear thesis, "a person who can jump into a mosh pit would make a good president," he didn't bring up any reasons why this is so.
Some students pointed out that the reasons were presented subtly. For example, they argued that a person who is willing to be a normal, fun loving person would be able to gain the trust and loyalty of Americans more easily than a stuffed shirt. They also argued that such a candidate would be able to work well with the nation's youth.
We decided that Moore's thesis was that a person who was willing to dive into a mosh pit would make a good president.
Moore's ethos was right on for most of the classes. We tended to like Moore's "normal guy" ethos. He doesn't dress well, he's not too handsome, he's kinda big, but he doesn't seem to care. Many students said they identified with him more, and trusted him more because of this ethos. Other students were completely turned off by him, however.
Moore made good use of pathos as well, bringing in music from Rage Against the Machine to get our blood pumping, and structuring the show along good storytelling lines ending with the victory of getting Alan Keyes to jump into the pit. He also encouraged our disdain of all the candidates who were too stuck up to jump in.
It was Moore's logos that seemed to suffer. Though he presented a clear thesis, "a person who can jump into a mosh pit would make a good president," he didn't bring up any reasons why this is so.
Some students pointed out that the reasons were presented subtly. For example, they argued that a person who is willing to be a normal, fun loving person would be able to gain the trust and loyalty of Americans more easily than a stuffed shirt. They also argued that such a candidate would be able to work well with the nation's youth.
Three Puppets
Tuesday we made logos, ethos and pathos concrete in our minds by channeling them through puppets.
I started things by arguing that farting in public would lead to the next ice age. I established my ethos by putting on a puppet with a uniform and having him be Colonel Sanders, head of Homeland Security. He used his drill sergeant voice to bring us to attention and then told us that the study we were about to hear had been conducted over 30 years and had cost 50 million dollars.
This established a few things in the audience's mind. First, a guy as important at Colonel Sanders was standing behind this project. And second, that a lot of time, thought and money had gone into the findings. This is a good ethos, it makes us more willing to believe the actual argument.
Next I took out a doctor doll and used her to say that she had been studying weather patterns for 30 years and had found a definite link between public farting and the chilling of the atmosphere. She also said that public farting was the leading cause of the progress of the ice age, even more so than the flapping of butterfly wings.
This is good logos because the doctor gave actual reasons backed up by data.
Finally I brought out Bobby Sue Ellen McGee, a mother of 10 children who all wanted to go to Disneyland with all their sweet innocent little hearts. Bobby had been saving for this trip for years. But if the ice age comes too soon, they won't be able to go to Disneyland and the hearts of her children will be broken beyond repair. "For the sake of the children, stop farting in public," she plead.
This was good pathos because it was aimed at our emotions. No one wants to disappoint 10 little kids. Especially when their mother has scrimped for so many years to help them fulfill their dream of going to Disneyland.
I started things by arguing that farting in public would lead to the next ice age. I established my ethos by putting on a puppet with a uniform and having him be Colonel Sanders, head of Homeland Security. He used his drill sergeant voice to bring us to attention and then told us that the study we were about to hear had been conducted over 30 years and had cost 50 million dollars.
This established a few things in the audience's mind. First, a guy as important at Colonel Sanders was standing behind this project. And second, that a lot of time, thought and money had gone into the findings. This is a good ethos, it makes us more willing to believe the actual argument.
Next I took out a doctor doll and used her to say that she had been studying weather patterns for 30 years and had found a definite link between public farting and the chilling of the atmosphere. She also said that public farting was the leading cause of the progress of the ice age, even more so than the flapping of butterfly wings.
This is good logos because the doctor gave actual reasons backed up by data.
Finally I brought out Bobby Sue Ellen McGee, a mother of 10 children who all wanted to go to Disneyland with all their sweet innocent little hearts. Bobby had been saving for this trip for years. But if the ice age comes too soon, they won't be able to go to Disneyland and the hearts of her children will be broken beyond repair. "For the sake of the children, stop farting in public," she plead.
This was good pathos because it was aimed at our emotions. No one wants to disappoint 10 little kids. Especially when their mother has scrimped for so many years to help them fulfill their dream of going to Disneyland.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Logos, Ethos and Pathos on Parade
Today we watched a segment from Michael Moore's television show "The Awful Truth." The story was about how an HMO wouldn't pay for a life-saving pancreas transplant for Chris.
Moore does a number of things to get the HMO to change its mind: he invites the head honchos and the employees to Chris's funeral and then holds a funeral rehearsal outside the HMO's headquarters. The HMO finally agrees to pay for Chris's transplant.
As we watched this show we noted how Michael Moore used logos, ethos and pathos to persuade us.
He established his ethos immediately by showing us that a real person's life was on the line. Not only that, but a real person with a wife and two young daughters. He gave us every reason to believe that anything that could be done to save this guy's life was worth it.
Next, Moore went on to solidify our commitment to him by showing Chris giving his two daughters a push on the swing set and then cutting to an interview where Chris says, "I have two daughters. They need a dad," and then breaks down. This is how Moore used pathos to appeal to us.
To appeal to the logical (logos) side of us Moore gave us facts and figures about how much money Humana makes, how much its corporate officers make , and how many pancreas transplants that kind of money translates into.
Moore also makes excellent use of story structure to invest us in Chris's plight. He casts Chris as the underdog, unjustly oppressed by a rich, heartless corporation. We know from earlier in this class that the more opposition a hero has to overcome, the more we invest in that hero. It also really helped that the PR guy Moore and Chris took on came across as being so callous.
We did notice, however, that Humana was never given a chance to represent itself. Did Humana have a really good reason why it wasn't willing to pay for the transplant? We will never know. Perhaps Humana's reason was so good that Moore's case would have been destroyed.
On the other hand, a sure way to boost your ethos is to let the other side have its say and then show how their reasons don't hold up. Then the audience says to itself, "Hah. Even when given a chance, the opposition cannot defend its decisions." You'll have the audience totally on your side if you are able to do that.
Moore does a number of things to get the HMO to change its mind: he invites the head honchos and the employees to Chris's funeral and then holds a funeral rehearsal outside the HMO's headquarters. The HMO finally agrees to pay for Chris's transplant.
As we watched this show we noted how Michael Moore used logos, ethos and pathos to persuade us.
He established his ethos immediately by showing us that a real person's life was on the line. Not only that, but a real person with a wife and two young daughters. He gave us every reason to believe that anything that could be done to save this guy's life was worth it.
Next, Moore went on to solidify our commitment to him by showing Chris giving his two daughters a push on the swing set and then cutting to an interview where Chris says, "I have two daughters. They need a dad," and then breaks down. This is how Moore used pathos to appeal to us.
To appeal to the logical (logos) side of us Moore gave us facts and figures about how much money Humana makes, how much its corporate officers make , and how many pancreas transplants that kind of money translates into.
Moore also makes excellent use of story structure to invest us in Chris's plight. He casts Chris as the underdog, unjustly oppressed by a rich, heartless corporation. We know from earlier in this class that the more opposition a hero has to overcome, the more we invest in that hero. It also really helped that the PR guy Moore and Chris took on came across as being so callous.
We did notice, however, that Humana was never given a chance to represent itself. Did Humana have a really good reason why it wasn't willing to pay for the transplant? We will never know. Perhaps Humana's reason was so good that Moore's case would have been destroyed.
On the other hand, a sure way to boost your ethos is to let the other side have its say and then show how their reasons don't hold up. Then the audience says to itself, "Hah. Even when given a chance, the opposition cannot defend its decisions." You'll have the audience totally on your side if you are able to do that.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Logos, Ethos and Pathos
Today we talked about logos, ethos and pathos. They are the three elements that go into persuasion.
We illustrated each of these elements by telling a story about Bob.
This is Bob. He has four arms and four legs, which makes it difficult to get a girl to go out with him. But finally he finds one on MySpace named Maude, and he doesn't want to ruin his chance.
So, he showers thoroughly, making sure to wash all four armpits well. Then he puts on a good suit that downplays his extra limbs (but still has enough pockets for each hand, plus one). He is stylin'.
On his way to Maud's house he stops by the florist and picks up a single perfect rose.
When he gets to Maud's house he holds the rose out to her with a flourish. She sighs and says, "Oh, Bob, it's so beautiful," to which Bob replies,
Bob has successfully used all three elements of persuasion.
Ethos is how a person presents him or herself. For example, the ethos of KISS (makeup, leather, spiked boots) is much different from the ethos of Brittany Spears (makeup, leather, spiked books ... wait). Bob took his ethos very seriously. He wanted to make himself as attractive as possible to Maud. Perhaps he even found out what colors she liked and chose his outfit accordingly.
Pathos is how a person works with emotions. Bob chose a single perfect rose because he knows girls love flowers, especially perfect ones. Flowers never fail to make a girl happy. And he wanted her to be happy when she saw him.
Logos is one's ability to reason and appeal to logic. Bob knew that his answer to Maud's declaration of the beauty of the flowers left the perfect logical opening for him to say the perfect thing.
Bob will no doubt have his hands (all four of them) full trying to use his logos to convince Maud that having a man with four arms and four legs is a good thing, but we have no doubt he will do well, because he clearly understands how to use the three elements of persuasion:
Ethos: presentation of oneself
Pathos: prowess with emotions
Logos: logic and convincing power
If Bob didn't have one of these bases covered, his plan would have fallen apart. Without ethos, he might have shown up looking like he just finished fixing his car, or smelling bad. Without pathos, he would not have been able to appeal to Maud's emotions. Without logos he'll never be able to convince her that a man with only two arms is no man at all.
So remember: the suit, the rose and the speech bubble.
We illustrated each of these elements by telling a story about Bob.
This is Bob. He has four arms and four legs, which makes it difficult to get a girl to go out with him. But finally he finds one on MySpace named Maude, and he doesn't want to ruin his chance.So, he showers thoroughly, making sure to wash all four armpits well. Then he puts on a good suit that downplays his extra limbs (but still has enough pockets for each hand, plus one). He is stylin'.
On his way to Maud's house he stops by the florist and picks up a single perfect rose.
When he gets to Maud's house he holds the rose out to her with a flourish. She sighs and says, "Oh, Bob, it's so beautiful," to which Bob replies,
Bob has successfully used all three elements of persuasion.Ethos is how a person presents him or herself. For example, the ethos of KISS (makeup, leather, spiked boots) is much different from the ethos of Brittany Spears (makeup, leather, spiked books ... wait). Bob took his ethos very seriously. He wanted to make himself as attractive as possible to Maud. Perhaps he even found out what colors she liked and chose his outfit accordingly.
Pathos is how a person works with emotions. Bob chose a single perfect rose because he knows girls love flowers, especially perfect ones. Flowers never fail to make a girl happy. And he wanted her to be happy when she saw him.
Logos is one's ability to reason and appeal to logic. Bob knew that his answer to Maud's declaration of the beauty of the flowers left the perfect logical opening for him to say the perfect thing.
Bob will no doubt have his hands (all four of them) full trying to use his logos to convince Maud that having a man with four arms and four legs is a good thing, but we have no doubt he will do well, because he clearly understands how to use the three elements of persuasion:
Ethos: presentation of oneself
Pathos: prowess with emotions
Logos: logic and convincing power
If Bob didn't have one of these bases covered, his plan would have fallen apart. Without ethos, he might have shown up looking like he just finished fixing his car, or smelling bad. Without pathos, he would not have been able to appeal to Maud's emotions. Without logos he'll never be able to convince her that a man with only two arms is no man at all.So remember: the suit, the rose and the speech bubble.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
What Dr. Doom can teach us about essays
Today we followed the exciting adventures of the Fantastic Four who had just been captured by the diabolical Dr. Doom.
Our job, as members of the Future Supervillains of America club, was to devise a room that could hold all members of the Fantastic Four simultaneously, while keeping them alive to serve our nefarious schemes.
We came up with some good stuff, like locking them in an Adaminium cage (to keep The Thing from breaking out), suspended over a very deep canyon by magnets (so that Mr. Fantastic couldn't stretch himself to saftey. The cage would be alloyed with napalm so that if the Human Torch combusted and tried to fly out he would sizzle all his friends.
We then looked at what the real Dr. Doom did in issue 5 of the Fantastic Four comic book. He threw a net over the Fantastic Four's building. The net was made of asbestos so that the Human Torch could not burn through it. It was also electrified so that the Thing couldn't rip it apart. (We're not sure why Mr. Fantastic couldn't stretch himself thin and get through the holes, though.) In this way Dr. Doom captured the Fantastic Four.
Which leads us to the first thing Dr. Doom can teach us about writing an essay:
You must capture your audience at the very beginning.
Dr. Doom then took Susan Storm hostage and sent the rest of the Four on a mission to steal Blackbeard the Pirate's treasure. When the Four returned with the treasure, Dr. Doom locked them in an airless chamber. Thus, the Human Torch could not ignite, not to mention the fact that none of them could breathe.
However, Dr. Doom was not keeping a good eye on Susan Storm, who managed to short circuit Dr. Doom's machine and save her compadres.
Dr. Doom did not take every one of the Fantastic Four into account. Otherwise he would have won, and Marvel Comics would not have made millions of dollars on the Fantastic Four franchise.
Thus we come to the second thing we can learn from Dr. Doom about writing essays:
You must take every single member of your audience into account, otherwise, one of them will find a way to blow up your essay and set the other people you have captured free.
And you wouldn't want that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)