194 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking
what he did to them. But equally it is not
very just if someone has completed their
sentence and is then punished again by
having doors closed on certain careers.
It might even drive them back into crime,
instead of going straight, which would
create other victims. It all depends on
whose side you look at it from.
I think talking about ‘rights’ is the
wrong way to approach this problem.
We should think about what is best for
society rather than about individual
people: criminals or victims. Perhaps if
we were all less interested in wealth
and celebrity, the problem wouldn’t
arise in the first place, meaning that
we are all a bit to blame.• Further argument can arise out of
evaluation, or it can be a new line of
reasoning altogether.
• Further arguments can be raised in
support of the author’s conclusion(s), or in
opposition to them.
• Sometimes further argument leads to a
balanced or neutral conclusion.Summary
argue that whereas a convict gets a limited
sentence to serve, the victim may carry the
injuries or scars for a lifetime. Where that is the
case, doesn’t it add insult to injury if the
criminal later makes a lot of money by telling or
selling the story?
But there is another possible response that
we have to consider before we finish this
discussion. Sometimes, not infrequently, we
hear arguments for both sides of some difficult
issue and we are impressed by both of them –
or alternatively by neither of them. For
example, you may feel, after evaluating and
thinking carefully about this argument, that
those who champion the victim and those
who champion the ex-criminal both have a
point, and that whichever way you decide you
will benefit one at the expense of the other. In
other words, if you stand by the rights of one
group, you affect the rights of another group.
That very often happens in real life, and it
makes it difficult, or even impossible, for those
who have to make decisions to do the ‘right
thing’ by everyone. There is not always a clear
choice.
Concluding that there is a balance between
equally strong arguments – or equally weak
ones – is a perfectly acceptable position to
take. It should not be used as a cowardly way
of avoiding an uncomfortable decision; but if
your critical reasoning leads you to that
conclusion, then you have no choice but to
declare a ‘draw’.
The next and final example demonstrates
how further argument can lead to a balanced
or neutral position:
[6] It is obviously not much of a punishment
for a vicious criminal to come from
prison and make a million dollars from a
film about the crime, none of which is
given to the victims who suffered fromEnd-of-chapter assignment
‘Where performance-enhancing drugs in
sport are concerned, zero-tolerance is the
only policy that should be considered.’
Write your own argument to support or
challenge this claim.