Module 1 Discussion - Ethical Question and Logical Fallacies
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
NAV101
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by AmbassadorFogZebra6
NAV101 Module 1 Discussion – Ethical Question and Logical Fallacies
Instructions | Complete both Parts A and B of the Discussion
Part A. Ethical Question
Before beginning this discussion, do your reading and watch the video lectures and short videos. 1.
Perhaps you’ve heard someone say, “Just because something is legal does not mean it’s ethical.” Provide an example of where you think law and morality differ (or have differed
in the past). 2.
Provide two examples of things you think are just "morally" right (or wrong) regardless of what anyone thinks. Defend your position regarding the examples you provide. Part B. Fallacies
Being able to tell the difference between arguments in the philosophical sense vs. everyday arguments is very important. A logical fallacy is an error of reasoning that will weaken your argument. Your argument should be sound and without flaws. Someone acting on a flawed argument is like someone driving a car with three wheels: It’s not a good idea. The video The 10
Logical Fallacies
provides an introduction to logical fallacies that will help you understand how they are used in everyday life.
Before you begin to write your initial discussion post, use the Article Selection document
located on the Module 1 Learning Materials
page to select one of the articles to discuss. Keeping the video lecture, readings, and videos in mind, address the following in your initial post:
Identify the article you are exploring.
Identify the fallacy.
Provide a brief explanation of why you think a fallacy was committed.
Summarize the article and, in your own words, describe the fallacy, including the components that make the argument sound or unsound. Then, explain how it is used.
Relate the fallacy to a real-life situation and discuss how it was used to persuade the reader.
After you have completed your initial post, respond to at least two of your peers’ posts
. In your responses, you should discuss the following:
Discuss how your peer’s identified fallacy relates to your identified fallacy.
Connect your peer’s writing with this week’s video lecture about arguments.
Discuss personal experiences or examples from your own life that relate to their posts or expand on their ideas and thoughts.
Make sure your responses are relevant, meaningful, respectful, and detailed.
Part A
1. One shining example of law and morality conflicting with each other would be the Jim Crow Laws that began around 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified, abolishing slavery. These laws were meant to marginalize the African American population and segregate them by denying them employment opportunities, education opportunities, and the right to vote. If anyone attempted to defy these laws, they would be arrested, fined, and often times jailed (History.com Editors, 2018). This lasted until 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was signed, legally ending the segregation of African Americans. Not to say that discrimination of people of color did not continue, but at least it was not legal anymore. 2. One of the most controversial topics in today's society are women's rights when it comes to bodily autonomy. I believe that it is a basic human right and morally right for any person to have complete autonomy over their bodies in regard to everything from choosing what to eat for breakfast to choosing to terminate a pregnancy. Reproductive rights seem to be the biggest issue at the moment - mainly contraceptive availability and abortion rights. Additionally, another incredibly controversial topic at the moment is LGBTQIA+ rights including gender affirming treatments, procedures, and even public expression of personal identity. This also goes along with the idea that having bodily autonomy is morally correct. Unfortunately, both of these issues are ones that may never see a unanimous decision because one person's idea of what is morally right and wrong could be the polar opposite from the person right next to them. References:
History.com Editors. (2018). Jim Crow laws: Definition, facts & timeline
. History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws Part B
I chose the article, "Exceptional and able: teen turns down military future over exclusionary policies". I believe the fallacy used in this article is the "Sentimental Appeals." Sentimental Appeals use the readers' emotions to distract them from the facts. This article talks about a teenager named Tory Ridgeway whose dream was to become an aerospace engineer in the Navy, but the autism diagnosis that he received when he was 4-years-old deemed him medically unfit to serve in the role that he desired. Tory did receive a medical waiver, but he would only be able to assume the duties of a Restricted Line Officer. Unfortunately, this is not what he wanted to do, so he pulled his waiver request back and walked away from the NROTC scholarship opportunity. Tory's mother, Vanessa Ridgeway, is the author of the article and she uses Tory's troubled childhood, his dedication to the Autism Awareness Community, the idea of
following in his father's footsteps by joining the Navy, and Tory's dedication to the military community - specifically the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) - to generate an emotional response to Tory's story making it seem that it is unfair that he was turned away from a program that he was so passionate about simply because of his autism diagnosis. This could be considered an error in reasoning because regardless of his passion and dedication to
the Navy, he simply does not meet the physical/medical requirements to serve in the capacity that he desired. I relate to Tory's situation on a smaller scale because it is my dream to fly for the Navy, but that it not something that I can apply for without a waiver due to a medical diagnosis that I have - and there is always the chance that my waiver would not be approved. Luckily it has not disqualified me from duty in general and I can still serve in the community that
I am passionate about. References:
Hansen, H. (2020, April 2). Fallacies
. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ Ridgeway, V. (2022, August 19). Exceptional and able: Teen turns down military future over exclusionary policies
. Navy Times. https://www.navytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/09/28/exceptional-and-able-
teen-turns-down-military-future-over-exclusionary-policies/
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