David S. Kaufer makes some very valid recommendations in his method on how to write an argument on public policy in his article "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." I believe that his method is very informative, and it does make the student think when developing their arguments. It also creates a strong foundation for one to prove their point on almost any argument. However, it seems that his whole method cannot be followed in every case. We see a particular instance of this in S. Andrew Ostapski, L. Wayne Plumly, and J.L. Love's article, "The Ethical and Economic Implications of Smoking in Enclosed Public Facilities: A Resolution of Conflicting Rights."
First of all, Kaufer believes that we should use stock issues when writing our arguments; "Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy" (Kaufer 57). This is one aspect of Kaufer's method that Ostapski's article does follow. The three authors chose a very controversial topic--public smoking. Should public smoking be banned? Should it be segregated? We see how this is a stock issue from the very beginning when the authors describe the background and why this is a controversy, "passive inhalation [of smoking] has contributed to the declining health of non-users, who are exposed to this product" (Ostapski 377). Kaufer feels that while arguing for your stock issue, you should choose one of his sources or levels of conflict, "It is useful to think of these five sources of conflict in hierarchical terms, as "levels" of conflict that become more encompassing (harder to resolve) as one proceeds from level 1 to 5" (Kaufer 58). We see the development of the argument during the background information, and when they speak about the intervention, which includes whether or not smoking should be completely banned in public spaces.
Another step of Kaufer's method that the ethical article follows is how the student or writer should be able to see and understand both sides of the article, "At this point students have familiarized themselves with the adversaries' conflicting reasons for arguing one way or another" (Kaufer 60). Both sides of smoking is seen in many cases throughout this article, they tell how advocates that would like to ban or restrict smoking in enclosed areas feel "that it is needed to prevent the harmful health effects of passive cigarette smoke. Smokers insist that smoking is no different from other lifestyle choices of varying risks, which should be a matter of personal choice" (Ostapski 378). This quote, along with many others show how both smokers and non-smokers feel about the issue at hand.
Although there are many similarities mentioned above between the article and Kaufer's method, there are also many differences. We begin seeing the differences during the competing analogies step. Kaufer feels that the students should use "analogies to previous cases resolved in their favor" (Kaufer 62) to prove their argument. We do not really see competing analogies in the ethical article. I believe this is due to Kaufer's level of conflict scale. At least as of 1997, when this article was written, there was no concrete solution to the problem, which would cause this article to be beyond a level four conflict.
As said, I believe that the conflict of the ethical article goes beyond Kaufer's level four, but I don't feel that it goes all the way to a level five. At this time, there is not a conclusion that can be drawn due to the conflicting views on local values. This 'local values' statement is why this argument does not qualify as a complete level 5 conflict--level five involves "global values." Even though, this is a small difference, I would give this conflict level a 4.5, with conflict in local values, and no solution.
Lastly, Kaufer believes that after finding competing analogies, one should find their resolution to the conflict at hand. Although, the authors of the smoking article cannot do this due to the conflict level, they do draw on some solutions that they feel would be useful. These particular solutions are drawn from examples of an indoor sports facility. One solution they draw is that "Lower-deck seating could be classified as non-smoking and upper-deck seating could be designated smoking areas" (Ostapski 383).
As seen throughout this whole comparison, there are times when Kaufer's method cannot be used. We also see that there are conflict levels seen between the levels that he gives us. These things are definitely worth thinking of when constructing public policy arguments.
Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication 35.1 (Feb 1984): 57-70
Ostapski, S. Andrew, Plumly, L. Wayne, Love, J.L. "The Ethical and Economic Implications of Smoking in Enclosed Public Facilities: A Resolution of Conflicting Rights. Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 16. No 4. (Mar 1997). 377-384.
No comments:
Post a Comment