Hicks 1

Sterling D. Hicks
SAEL 200-012
Professor Gordyn
December 5, 2014

Ethical Controversy
In light of all that has taken place historically and leading up to the devastating and
controversial events of this fall, our nation as a whole seems to be divided. Our society has been
placed under a microscope, being examined by all. I find it deeply troublesome that people are
only looking from the outside in and not trying to help find a solution. But of course these would
be our sideline citizens, those that sit around a wait patiently for something to happen, a change
or shift in life that will never truly come unless you make it.
Towards the beginning of this semester the class read A Crucible Moment: College
Learning and Democracys Future. This reading makes a clear call for action; to invest in higher
education, to make Civic Learning and Democratic engagement a shared national priority. The
overall message is to get higher education (Colleges) and partners in education and government
to implement Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement into every college education. The
only problem with this is that we need our citizens to be informed, reformed and engaged in
society NOW not when they are getting into adulthood (assuming they make it that far).
On August 9th, 2014 , Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed, by
Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, Mo., a suburb of St. Louis. The shooting

Hicks 2

incited riots and protest which spread throughout the community for weeks without end. On
November 24th, the St. Louis County prosecutor made an announcement stating that the grand
jury decided not to indict Officer Wilson for his actions in this case. Just as the police of that area
had predicted, the announcement kick started yet another chain of protest and rioting.
Now I understand this community even the nation was shaken by the event but what does
rioting solve. It seems as if many people have gone into an uproar, not even knowing the true
facts of the case or what took place during the scuffle. How does rioting, burning buildings and
looting stores contribute to being a responsible citizen? Rawls theory of justice states that in
order to establish an equal society, social institutions and must be equally beneficial to EVERY
MEMBER!
Many times I believe this is what we as citizens have forgotten. We get so caught up in
the superficial things Its because he was black or Its because hes white. If we truly live in
a society where justice is shown to all, then none this should even matter. Quite frankly we as
citizens need to re-evaluate the way we go about doing things and the examples we are setting
for future generations.
Referring back to A Crucible Moment; the goal is to create responsible/engaged citizens
instead of sideline citizens, i.e. those only focused on their specific jobs/lives instead of the
things going on in society. However, I dont think this particular article meant we should respond
to negative situations in a way that will only inspire more controversy. Chapter three offers a
better approach to achieving this goal. We are presented the concept of starting to develop

Hicks 3

reformed/responsible citizens at an early age. Starting to implement said programs from K-12
would eliminate the need for reform in higher education. Starting at an earlier age allows the
programs to take root and become second nature to students as they develop. By teaching our
children early on how to be productive in society all this could be avoided.
In our readings about McNaughton we are led to understand that during the last fifty
years, the conventional position in ethics has been a non-cognitivist one: since there are no moral
facts, moral remarks are best understood, not as attempting to describe the world, but as having
some other motive, such as expressing the attitudes or preferences of the speaker. In recent years
this position has been gradually confronted by moral realists who maintain that there are moral
facts; there is A TRUTH OF THE MATTER in ethics, which is independent of our views, and
which we seek to discover.
As stated previously we sometimes fail to find the truth in things acting on pure emotion
allowing it to cloud our minds and judgment. So what really happened?
Detailed police reports say that at 11:54 am Michael Brown and his friend Dorian
Johnson left a nearby liquor store where video surveillance shows Mr. Brown stealing
some cigarillos. The two of them walked down the middle of the street attracting the
attention of Officer Wilson, who then directed them to use the side walk, before noticing
that Brown fit the description of the suspect. While making his call to dispatch Officer
Wilsons vehicle is invaded by Mr. Brown trying to reach for his gun which is then fired
by Wilson in defense. Brown then runs away from the vehicle and is chased on foot

Hicks 4

before he finally stops and turns around. Brown then stretches his arms out wide and
provokes the officer, basically taunting him, and continues to approach aggressively. This
is when the final shots were fired. (Healy "What Happened in Ferguson?")
So now that we know the truth, how do we proceed? McNaughtons book concludes that
a convincing case can be made out for a radical form of moral realism in which moral virtue is
found, not in the following of correct moral principles, but rather in the development of moral
sensitivity. We have to take these facts into consideration and begin to act on them accordingly.
This creates yet another question; what is the correct action to take?
What can we do to make this situation better? Ultimately it comes down to pure ethics
and virtue. We were all raised to know right from wrong, and when we acted on wrong/bad
decisions we were usually punished in some way for it. Eventually doing the right thing or
making the right choices became natural and it should have in some way made you feel good just
because you know you made the right choice. One must also understand that our perception of
what is right and wrong is not universal, however, in light of this new information about
Ferguson, I dont believe rioting and destroying an entire town is the right thing to do.
In book two of "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle describes virtue as a disposition,
differentiating it not only from feelings and faculties, but from activities. Aristotle describes
happiness as an activity, or energeia, in Book I, meaning that happiness is not an emotional state
but a way of life. Happiness is exhibited not in how people are but in how we act. Virtue, by
contrast, is a disposition, or hexis, which means that it is a state of being and not an activity.
Specifically speaking, virtue is the disposition to act in a way that would lead to a happy life.

Hicks 5

The grand Jury (made up equally of both blacks and whites) decided not to indict Officer
Wilson not out of racism, but because in their minds, and according to their ethics, this was the
right thing to do. The decision not to indict Officer Wilson caused an immediate uproar among
those who had gathered outside the Ferguson Police Department. As the night continued, the
situation grew worse. Buildings were set on fire, and looting was reported in several businesses.
The protests against the police have placed the predominantly black community against a nearly
all-white police force. Of the 53 commissioned officers in the Ferguson police department, four
are black. While most of St. Louis County is white, Ferguson and neighboring towns are
predominantly black.

The basis of this entire disagreement is pure racism . The people believe that Mr. Brown
was shot and killed simply because he was black and the Officer knew he could get away with it .
Honestly no attempt of an argument has been made here because, all we have done is riot and
give empty claims about being victims of racism from our officials without the proper facts to
back it up. Im not saying racism never occurs but in this situation I dont see where it fits in.

In our reading "The Nature of Arguments" we learned that argumentation occurs at any
time people begin to exchange reasons for adopting actions, beliefs, or values . This passage
speaks to its audience on how to make a proper argument and gives insight on the basic process
of argumentation when exchanging opinions and making decisions with other people at home, at
school, in the community, or at work. Through this article we learn that in order to get our points

Hicks 6

across, not necessarily win the argument we must have warrants (reasons) to back it . I can easily
make a claim but without reasoning it is just an empty statement.

One misconception about argumentation is that it is mostly about how to persuade other
people; in other words, how to win arguments .

It is important to learn to speak and write

persuasively so that other people will consider your ideas . However, the main reason that we
study argumentation is to make debate and decision making more informed, rational, and
constructive. There is nothing persuasive or even remotely intelligent about inciting riots and
looting stores, destroying the very fabric of the community IN WHICH YOU LIVE!
We have to begin making intelligent arguments and using our heads for something other
than violence. We must construct our opinions into a more factual debate/presentation . We have
to add reasoning for our reasons. In other words we cant continue to support an argument by just
saying because, because, because. Every argument needs to have some sort of factual evidence
and support. The same way people have begun using the concept of Parrhesia in their actions i.e.
rioting, looting, protest, we must be fearless in our argumentative stance, but approach such
opposition with wisdom.

The concept of Parrhesia is based off of the five key principles; commitment, truth in
your own ideals, duty, the well-being of others, and risk . If we take the time to dissect the
arguments being made here we can see that the fearless actions of the people have not always
been thought out. Yes, they were committed to the cause but the other factors such as truth in
your own ideals were obviously overlooked. How can you act upon something that you have

Hicks 7

no knowledge of. Another aspect of parrhesia is the platform in which the speaker announces
their ideas. National attention has been called to the racial brutality of this event but, if all we
plan to do is riot what ethical change can be made? For the true concept of Parrhesia to adhere to
speech the speaker must be on a platform where there ideas can be considered and understood by
all.

Gadamer focused broadly by expanding upon the ideas of Aristotle, in the belief that
language to man is inherent in their soul and natural being Language is essentially human and
man is essentially a linguistic being (Gadamer, 61). Butler tells us that speech should be
regarded just like action. We are language based beings; it is with this that Butler argues
language makes us who we are, it establishes our very being . The language we speak is a tool
used to our own independent ends for it is autonomous. Language can sustain the body as well as
threaten its existence. Butler claims that what we as a people say is tied directly to what we do
or to our actions (Burton). In short man has potential for language, but I dont feel it is a pivotal
sign of higher intelligence. What makes man intelligent are the things that he or she does to help
further society.

The power that language has can be split into two different concepts. It can be a
constituting force that enables action or act as a negative force limiting people . We control our
speech, thus Butler places the blame on the particular person who spoke in a negating way .
Because we are linguistic beings, Butler says we are always vulnerable and susceptible to

Hicks 8

violence (Burton). Its the words that help to inspire positive change not a negative revolution
which make us intelligent.

Situations can enhance the effectiveness of a speech, for example: a gun policy speech
now may not warrant as much of a response as it would after a public shooting . However, to
simply address an issue when it becomes a focal point in the media is non-productive to society, I
am aware that the media coverage grants a wider coverage for a speaker to reach but it is
ridiculous that violence must occur in order for people to want to change things.

Bitzer in his Rhetorical Situation wrote that rhetorical discourse is called into existence
by situation. He defined the rhetorical situation as, A complex of persons, events, objects, and
relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed
if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring
about the significant modification of the exigence. With any rhetorical discourse, a prior
rhetorical situation exists. The rhetorical situation dictates the significant physical and verbal
responses as well as the sorts of observations to be made . An example of this would be the
President focusing on health care policy reform because it is an apparent problem . The situation,
thus, calls for the President to respond with rhetorical discourse concerning this issue.

The racial debate and tension that has occurred as a result of the shooting in Ferguson and
many other countless accounts of racial killing has become a major rhetorical situation, which
calls for some form of exigence, some call to action to resolve it and put our nation back
together. The only question now is: what do we do as a human race to solve and put an end to it?

Hicks 9

Prayerfully the explanation and appeal that I have made can be used as a stepping stool towards
greatness. If we as a people can grasp these concepts of Rhetoric, Ethics, Fearless Speech etc. we
may find ways to solve our problems in more ethical instead of controversial ways.
Work Cited

Healy, Jack. "What Happened in Ferguson?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Aug.
2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouritown-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=1
Burton, Lindsey. "Philosophy of Feminism.: On Linguistic Vulnerability. 30 Apr. 2008. Web. 8
Dec. 2014. <http://philofwmst.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-linguistic-vulnerability.html>.