Conflicting viewpointsConflicting viewpoint is a critical thinki.docx
- 1. Conflicting viewpoints Conflicting viewpoint is a critical thinking that is very key and central in most of our arguments, either in speech or in written form. When coming up with our premises to argue our opinion or present that which we have, critical thinking is the core in ensuring there is logic in the arguments. Premises should therefore be well articulated to accurately convey the meaning it was primarily intended to realize. In attempts to present our premises accurately, biases, fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning should be avoided at whatever cost. In this paper, I will examine three pro reasons for disenfranchisement of felon laws. The first con premise argues that blacks are the most affected by the felon disenfranchisement law because a disproportionate number of blacks are felons. The premise further argues that the problem is not the racist laws themselves but rather the black criminality since the white felons are too submitted to the same laws (Jason, 2014). This view is not only proper in logic but also articulates the argument clearly. This view is interesting as it clearly explains the uniformity of the law to both whites and blacks. In a broader sense, the premise argues that it is because of the unusual felon criminality levels associated with blacks that makes this law perceived to discriminate against them. This con premise is a good argument in terms of logic; how the ideas are expressed. If I would buy into this idea, it will mean I wholly agree with the premises and thus strongly stand in the position that disenfranchised felon laws are in the most basic form non-discriminatory. In a more realistic position, this idea is true, when it is argued that the felon laws apply evenly to both white and black races. This simply means, both races are subjected to the same equal sanctions whenever violations are noted. Analyzing this argument closely, it is fallacious. Hasty generalization comes in when the premise that blacks make the
- 2. most felons is featured. There is no sufficient evidence to support the claim and no premises to anchor the claim. This is fallacious as it is a conclusion jumped into with no clear representative sample to rely on for generalization. Again, it is biased to say, the problem is not the law but rather black criminality. In a deeper sense, this would mean, the laws were enacted to control the increased felon crimes committed by blacks. The second pro premise argues that it believes in civil rights and equality in the criminal justice system, but at the same time finds it reasonable to deny a felon voting right. The premise argues that these laws have always been in existence in different states and therefore it is a reasonable sanction to people who deliberate on committing serious crimes. This premise is interesting in the aspect of arguing that it denies voting rights to those who deliberate on committing felons. According to this premise, there is no racial intent, but the core of the practice is the reasonable aspect of the policy. In a deeper sense, denying voting rights can deter others from committing crime to becoming law abiding. This premise is logical in a sense to an extent. Borrowing the claim will therefore imply that one agrees with the claim that denying felons voting rights is a reasonable policy and can be helpful in reducing crime levels. This idea might be true in the sense where the felons feels marginalized from the state’s operations. With this feeling, others will refrain from crime so as to have the right to participate in the state’s decision-making process. In a broader sense, the policy is reasonable because it serves a general deterrence purpose thus reducing felon levels. This premise is not right in logic as it argues the claims so shallow. This premise is clear in raising arguments that the reasonable policy is implemented, just because it has always been in practice in several states. It is difficult to deduce from such reasoning to well establish the cause-effect dimension. It is not reasonable in a critical sense to argue that a practice is reinforced just for the sake of it; because it has been in
- 3. existence over the years in a state. It is also assumed that, denying the felons right to vote is a reasonable policy. The claim has not been backed with evidence to elaborate the “how” dimension of its effectiveness. The last pro argues that the blacks commit the disproportionate number of felonies. The premise further expounds to say that the fact that blacks make the greatest population in prison should not throw blame to racism. It adds to say most population in prison is male and this should not be interpreted to denote reverse sexism. He acknowledges the victim survey to indicate the index of blacks in felony commission to be at the top and thus claims regardless of the felon’s race, the punishment should be accorded as stipulated (Edward, 2005). This claim is interesting as it clearly anchors on statistics to prove the fact that black population makes the most felons. It also expounds on why racism should not be blamed in the whole matter. It gives a typical demonstration relating the statistics of male dominating the prison and why that has never been termed as reverse sexism. The argument here is logical as it is anchored on facts and the facts are arranged in a way to support the original claim. Believing such a premise will imply that it is right not to blame on racism for the black disproportionate numbers in felony commission. To a greater extent, this argument is true as it is supported with evidence in this case the survey. This premise is logical and well-articulated in its deductive reasoning citing the comparison it gives of the large numbers in prison being male and that has never been associated to reverse sexism. This is used to deduce the fact that black felons increased number should never be equated to racism. In conclusion, a claim should be supported by premises which elaborates further on the claims. The premises should be firmly anchored on evidences and not mere thinking to prove a point in an argument. Assumptions, biases and fallacious statements must be avoided at all costs.