One of the question Mr. Perkins posed in class today asked if the argument "You can't argue this because you aren't_____(fill in blank with something such as a race, sex, religion, etc)" is a valid point. Bobby mentioned that he thinks this is true in the case of abortion- he does not feel that he can position himself against abortion because he is, in fact, not a woman and will never personally have an unwanted pregnancy. However, I would argue that men can have a valid opinion on abortion for a couple different reasons. For one, abortion in many cases is an ethics issue, often based on religion. Many Christian (and other religious) men see abortion as being morally wrong according to their beliefs, and opinion having nothing to do with their experience or how the woman may feel. I am not stating my own opinion on the abortion question, but I do see how a man could validly argue that abortion is wrong. Even a "non-religious" man may argue that abortion is morally/ethically wrong.
Many of you are in the same English class as I am and probably remember the discussion last week we had regarding racism/hate. To recap, we were discussing the Kincaid essay (about her experience in an English colony and her resulting negative view of England) when a girl in the class posed a situation, asking if hers was equal or related to Kincaid's. The situation was this: "My mom's friend, who is black, hates all white people because as a result of slavery, she is unable to find information on her family heritage and ancestral culture. She can trace her family history as far back as their trip in the slave trade, but beyond that she knows nothing." I argued that her hate of an entire race is not justified just because of the past, giving other examples and backup as well. My point now, however is not my argument, but the response I was repeatedly given by the teacher, even when I stayed after class for a few minutes the next day to clarify a few things. Every time, my teacher told me "Well, you don't see it to be justified, but you cannot possibly understand how it really must feel because you are white and you were not enslaved." I found a few different problems in her argument, but that one that hit me the most was that I supposedly cannot argue that hate is not justified if I have not been in the person's situation. Therefore, I found it interesting that the point was revisited in TOK.
While perfect understanding in its purest form cannot possibly be achieved as we are unable to put ourselves exactly in each others shoes and our thoughts on things are all subjective to experience, I think that it is necessary to agree on the validity of some level of understanding. Obviously, yes, I am caucasian and have never persoanlly been enslaved, beaten, or anything of that sort. Whether my argument in class was right or wrong, should its validity be based upon the that idea? Can I therefore not have a valid opinion on subjects dealing with races besides my own?
What if no one was ever allowed to express an opinion about anything they have not personally experienced in full? We would never get anywhere as a united society if we could only have negative opinions on things we've experienced. Women would only be able to discuss women's rights with women because any man's opinion on the matter would not be valid. We would always have to assume that the other party is correct if they have experienced something we have not. (I would consider that to be fallacy of authority in some cases...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that someone's lack of experience or involvement in an issue does not make their opinion of that issue totally invalid. Rather, I think their opinions on these situations carry a little bit less weight, and those who have first hand experience in regard to an issue have more relevant opinions.
For example, a man can have a legitimate and well reasoned opinion regarding abortion, but if a woman has struggled with the decision of whether to abort or not expresses her opinion on the matter, I am more likely to listen to what she has to say. It isn't that the man's opinion is totally invalidated because he is a man, but the woman is a better authority on the matter.
The issue goes back to the ways of knowing, and which authority is superior.
Wow. I hardly know where to begin in talking about how good Ali L's post is. First, there is this comment. "I am not stating my own opinion on the abortion question, but I do see how a man could validly argue that abortion is wrong." That is EXACTLY what IB wants to see. You can understand and present fairly a position, whether or not is your own.
Then there was her discussion of a related event in English class. Again, this is just the sort of thing we want to see...connection with other courses. Excellent example!
Finally, there is this..."What if no one was ever allowed to express an opinion about anything they have not personally experienced in full? We would never get anywhere as a united society if we could only have negative opinions on things we've experienced. Women would only be able to discuss women's rights with women because any man's opinion on the matter would not be valid. We would always have to assume that the other party is correct if they have experienced something we have not. (I would consider that to be fallacy of authority in some cases...)"
You are exactly right. By a process called reductio ad absurdum, you draw the argument out to its logical conclusion and show it to be absurd.
Excellent post!
I do not believe that woman's hate is justified as she is condemning the entire race of a different generation for actions committed by their ancestors. This relates to the topic in TOK that was discussed on monday (11/9). You want to help the children in poverty because its not their fault but at the same time you want to, not necessarily punish, but give a wake up call to the parents who don't try to get out of poverty. You cannot punish the children for their parents actions. While some resentment is understandable hate is not. It is sad that the woman does not know where she comes from but it has almost know effect on the present. I know that part of my ancestors came from Scotland and it has no effect on my daily life. However my view may be slightly subjective as I don't know what its like to not know where my ancestors came from.
I would like to add that, if we are to say that you can't understand a situation unless you have experienced it, then the original statement made by the student is fallacious.
I assume that the mom's friend was not personally enslaved, so then how would she be able to understand what that is like? Her hate for all white people would be unfounded because she cannot understand what it was like to be enslaved. If the teacher truly believed that you can't understand a situation that you haven't experienced, then she should have dismissed the original statement.
I would like to add that, if we are to say that you can't understand a situation unless you have experienced it, then the original statement made by the student is fallacious.
I assume that the mom's friend was not personally enslaved, so then how would she be able to understand what that is like? Her hate for all white people would be unfounded because she cannot understand what it was like to be enslaved. If the teacher truly believed that you can't understand a situation that you haven't experienced, then she should have dismissed the original statement.
Post a Comment