dvaid.A5.140

dvaid.A5.140 - Daksha Vaid Writing 140, Section # 64560D...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Daksha Vaid Writing 140, Section # 64560D Dr. David Tomkins 4 th December 2009 Assignment #5 Towards a Better Future Public exchange of ideas tends to beget argumentation more invested in victory than impartial discovery. Public discourse is open to the legitimate pursuit of communication that may be marked by partiality and dishonesty. It is not answerable to any form of central body or established code of conduct. Since there are no governing rules to avoid self interest and favoritism it may give way to prejudice. One may find several issues that dominate the public realm, with numerous participants arguing and defending judgments formed in their minds about a particular matter. One such debate involves the rights of animals. People on one side of the debate argue that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain. They do not believe in taking away the rights of a creature which can suffer pain just because it does not have the ability to reason. Proponents of this view hold that the interests of all beings capable of suffering are worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. In an equal response, the people opposing this claim argue that the animal supporters fail to see the radicalism of the ethical vision that powers their view on animals. An ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly retarded child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees. Both the sides have their own set of claims which may not be supported by established rationale, but nevertheless serve to influence the thoughts and beliefs of the general public. The main objective of such a discourse is to win the argument, the victorious side being the one with a larger support base. They desire the gain of mass attention to persuade a higher percentage of individuals and thus indulge in emotional play and even dissemination of false facts. As academic discourse constitutes a higher level of intellectual reasoning, tolerance and acceptance of evidence, it provides viable ways to enhance and improvise public discourse around this debate. Adopting certain features of academic discourse into the public debate around animal rights helps achieve this as it embodies ideas which are verifiable, validated with substantial examples, follow a structured set of form and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

dvaid.A5.140 - Daksha Vaid Writing 140, Section # 64560D...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online