Let
us say that a thinker or school of thought has taken a position on an
issue, and we want to argue for or against this position. Let us assume
that there are rival thinkers with opposite positions on the issue. Let
us call the first position A, and the opposite position B. While A and B
can agree on any unlimited number of points, they must disagree on at
least one point. To begin an essay, we briefly state the two positions
before we take a position ourselves.
Example
1: Kant argues that morality is anchored in good beginnings (intent,
morals, duty) Mill argues that morality is anchored in good ends
(happiness, utility, consequences). Both Kant and Mill believe one
should use rules and act for the good of society, but Kant believes that
one should never break rules while Mill believes rules only serve as
tools to achieve good consequences.
Example
2: Mencius argues that human nature is essentially good, while Xunzi
argues that human nature is essentially evil. Both agree that society is
necessary for self improvement, but Mencius argues that society is
rooted in human nature while Hsun Zi argues that society is corrective
to human nature.
Example
3: Hindus argue that the self/mind/soul is eternal, while Buddhists
argue that the self/mind/soul is temporary/mortal. Both agree that karma
determines rebirth, but Hindus argue that we always retain our
particular individual self while Buddhists argue that extinction of the
self and identity with the whole can be achieved through effort and
practice.
Now
that we have stated the issue and the two opposite positions, we can
take a position or stand on it ourselves. There are five possible
positions to take between positions A and B.
The first position is ‘All A, no B’. This is an ‘all and none’,‘absolute’, ‘categorical’, or ‘black and white’ position.
The
second position is ‘Mostly A, but also some B’. This is a ‘some and
some not’, relative, ‘grey’ or ‘grey area’ position, yet it still gives
dominance to one side versus the other.
The
third position is ‘Some A and also some B’. This is a ‘some/some not’,
relative and ‘grey area’ position that gives dominance to neither side.
The fourth position is ‘Mostly B and also some A’. It is the second position, but favors B.
The fifth position is ‘All B, no A’. This is the first position, but entirely for B.
If
we examine the issue and find ourselves agreeing with position A, we
need only consider the first three. We must choose one of the three
based on how much we agree or disagree with the opposite position B. In a
debate with an answering opponent, we must also judge based on how
effectively and in what position our opponent will argue for B.
If
we believe that there is no argument or evidence for B, we can argue
‘All A, no B’. The advantage is that this is the most forceful and least
conceding position to take. The disadvantage is that any effective
argument for any B, even some little B, makes this position seem
ignorant and overly generalizing.
Ex: “Mill is entirely correct. Rules, morals and laws exist simply for the good of humanity.”
If
we believe that there is some argument or evidence for B, but there is
more argument and evidence for A, we can argue ‘Mostly A but also some
B’. The advantage is that any argument for B can be incorporated into
our argument and the position still maintained. The disadvantage is that
we must concede from the start to ‘some B’, which gives the opponent a
foothold. We are still putting our money on A, but we are hedging our
bets.
Ex:
“I side with Mill, but Kant also has a point. While rules, morals and
laws exist for the good of humanity, it is also true that they must be
upheld in many situations where there will be bad consequences.”
If
we believe that there is equal argument and evidence for A and B, we
can argue ‘Some A and also some B’. The advantage of being on both sides
is that any argument or evidence can be incorporated into our argument.
The disadvantage is that this does not forcefully argue for any
particular position, and our opponent can argue we are not taking a
stand on the issue. The counter to this is we are taking all sides and
viewing the issue as a whole.
Ex:
“Kant and Mill are two sides of the same coin. We should equally uphold
rules, morals and laws while also questioning their effectiveness when
we repeatedly fail to achieve good ends.”
To
write an effective essay, pick an issue from the material and argue for
one side ‘all and none’ (position 1), for one side ‘some and some not’
(position 2) or both sides equally (position 3).
Remember
to use examples from the lectures, reading and your life experience,
but also remember to focus on developing your own thought and argument
rather than taking time and space repeating what has already been argued
and written by others.
The
goal of the paper is not to simply take a position, but to take a
position effectively. If you take positions 1 or 2, demonstrate why your
are taking position A over B. If you take position 3, argue why neither
A nor B is sufficient without its complimentary opposite.
