Critical Thinking Touchstone 4_ BPaone
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Western Governors University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
168
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by SuperRock13048
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 1
Name: Brittany Paone
Date: 12/28/2023
Critical Thinking Final Touchstone
In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is likely to be something you don't actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do not write as an essay!
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
a.
Choose a topic from the following list:
●
Should people eat meat?
●
Should marijuana be legal?
●
Should pet cats be kept indoors?
●
Should zoos exist?
●
Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
●
Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
●
Should children be required to take gym/PE classes?
●
Should public roads be used for private car parking?
b.
Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both of them.
The conclusions need not
be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic list, but they do
need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you selected the topic "Should people eat meat?", your conclusions might be:
●
People should not eat meat.
●
People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
●
People should reduce their meat consumption. ●
People need not reduce their meat consumption.
c.
These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a conclusion after writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to match.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 2
Conclusion #1: Zoos should are ethical places to have.
Conclusion #2:
Zoos are not ethical places to have.
Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.
a.
Standard form is a series of numbered statements. Each should be one sentence long. The final statement is the conclusion. You do not need to label statements as premises or conclusions
; it is understood by the form of the argument that all statements are premises except the final one, which is always the conclusion.
b.
There should be at least one normative
statement (stating what people should do) and at least one descriptive statement (describing something to be true). Statements that predict outcomes or describe what people believe are not normative. A good way to determine if a statement is normative is looking for verb phrases like “should,” “ought,” or
“have an obligation to.”
c.
If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference. This can be an APA citation or just a link to a reputable website or publication. Here is a helpful resource for APA references.
d.
Place an asterisk (*) by the normative
premise(s) that support the conclusion.
e.
Do not use your conclusion as a premise. This is the fallacy of “begging the question.”
f.
There may be a subargument
within your argument, a conclusion reached by premises that then becomes a conclusion that supports your premise. If there is a subargument, underline the subconclusion
. g.
The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument (as given above) and begin with the word “therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1.
h.
The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements.
Argument #1
Zoos play a role in wildlife conservation
for critical and endangered species, savings animals and the like from poaching, habitat loss, and other human induced threats.
Zoos provide a role in education and awareness
, offering unique opportunities for the public to
learn about different animals and habitats throughout the world. Zoos contribute to scientific research and study.
By closely monitoring the animals under their care, zoos can gather valuable data on behavior, reproduction, and health. Zoos also care directly for injured and sick animals, providing a safe area for rehabilitation.
Zoos should receive more public and community support to continue their conservation and
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 3
educational efforts.*
Therefore, well-managed zoos serve as important institutions for conservation, public education, and contribute towards further scientific research and study. Argument #2
Zoos may cause harm to animals. Zoos place animals in restrictive and artificial environments
that may cause the animal significant stress and psychological harm. Depending on the animal, zoos may not be able to replicate the habitat or space that an animal needs to roam and socialize. The argument that zoos contribute to conservation efforts is questionable. While some zoos participate in breeding programs for endangered species, the percentage of successful reintroductions into the wild is relatively low (
The Conservation Mission of Zoos). Efforts and resources should be allocated to preserving and restoring natural habitats, which is a more sustainable approach to conservation.*
Zoos educational benefits are questionable.
The limited time visitors spend observing animals
in confined spaces often fails to convey the complex realities of their natural habitats and focuses on the entertainment factor for the patrons instead.
Zoos can face unethical practices
, like capturing animals around the world, trading exotic species, and improper handling and care of have been documented in zoos. Therefore, the argument against the existence of zoos rests on the ethical concerns surrounding animal welfare, dubious educational value, questionable conservation contributions, and the evidence of unethical practices.
Part III. Reflection
1.
Are your arguments deductive or inductive? Explain what the difference is between the two and why you see your argument as inductive or deductive. (2 sentences)
Deductive reasoning follows a general principle and works towards specific instances, while inductive arguments are based on specific examples and observations
that lead to a general conclusion. Thus, the arguments presented are inductive rather than deductive.
2.
Identify either a deductive rule of inference or an inductive practice that helps support your conclusion. Explain
The argument against or for zoos follows an inductive generalization approach, using specific observations about zoos (conversation efforts, educational resources,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 4
what the rule or practice means and how it was used to reach your conclusion. (2-3 sentences)
etc.) to form a general conclusion against their existence. This method of inductive reasoning involves drawing a broad conclusion from specific instances, assuming that the observed instances represent all zoos.
3.
What moral framework do you use to justify your normative conclusions (utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics)? Explain the meaning of the moral framework and how adopting that perspective leads to your conclusion. The two arguments do not
need to follow the same moral theory. (4-6 sentences)
Argument 1
The argument supporting zoos is rooted in utilitarian ethics, which prioritizes the consequences of actions. Advocates argue that zoos offer benefits in terms of wildlife conservation, education, and scientific research. These benefits, which include saving endangered species, raising awareness, and gathering valuable data, are seen as outweighing any potential negative impacts, justifying the existence and continued support of zoos. The argument reaches this conclusion by evaluating the overall positive consequences of zoos against
the negatives.
Argument 2
The argument against zoos combines deontological and utilitarian ethical frameworks. Deontological ethics emphasizes
inherent right and wrong, aligning with the argument against zoos causing harm to animals. Utilitarian ethics focuses on the consequences of actions, aligning with the argument for preserving natural habitats for a more sustainable and beneficial conservation approach.
4.
What assumptions are you making that may compromise your arguments? Use language from the tutorials that identify cognitive and unconscious biases. This should be about your experience, not a general response about potential biases. (4-6 sentences)
For Argument 1, I proceed with the assumption that all zoos prioritize wildlife conservation and animal welfare, operating in
the best interest of the species they house. However, if a zoo were to be proven more focused on entertaining the general public than ensuring the well-being of the animals, then this foundational assumption could be called into question. In Argument 2, I proceed
with the assumption that human interests take
precedence over animal welfare, referencing the entertainment value and limited educational opportunities provided by zoos.
Critical Thinking – Final Touchstone
Page 5
5.
What opinion did you have when you began this assignment, and what challenges to critical thinking did you encounter when arguing for a conclusion you didn't agree with? How
did logic and critical thinking help you to think about your topic from two different angles? This should be about
your personal experience, not a general response about the challenges of considering other points of view. (4-6 sentences)
When I began this assignment, I felt strongly that zoos are necessary. As an ardent advocate for zoos, I took the opportunity to consider opposing viewpoints questioning their existence. This exploration served to challenge my strong convictions, as it reminded me that there are indeed zoos that operate unethically and with ill intentions. To further scrutinize my original stance and bolster my argument, I dedicated time to examining the reasons supporting the need for zoos while also seeking the quintessential rationale for their possible nonexistence. Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argument Preparation
❒
Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
❒
Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒
Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a conclusion?
❒
Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people ought to do)?
❒
Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?
2. Annotating Your Argument
❒
Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your conclusion?
❒
Did you underline any subconclusions in your argument?
❒
Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well known/accepted?<
3. Reflection Questions
❒
Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?
❒
Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the question?