Aaron Ostler

Project 2
A Moral Answer (insert better title?)* Second Draft

For centuries the issue as to whether questions of morality can have a definitive answer

has stymied many philosophers. On each side of this divisive question lies a different approach

in explaining why questions of morality have or do not have a unified answer. Sam Harris and

Benjamin De Mesel each reason their way into two very different conclusions regarding this

subject but what is fascinating is their methods of approach in persuading their audience. While

both authors are posed with the challenge of convincing their audience that their stance is the

correct one, they each utilize different techniques to accomplish their task.

To begin, the first artifact is a video from a Ted Talk which allows for the presentation

of information to be more personable. Sam Harris makes his argument personable by stating to

the audience opposing position believes regarding the subject. By stating what most people, the

audience included, believe Sam Harris is both appealing to the crowd on an emotional level as

well as recognizing the opposing argument. The recognition of the opposing argument is very

strategic on Sam Harris part to establish a strong argument. If Sam Harris is able to state the

oppositions argument as well or better than the opposition can, then Sam Harris argument

appears to be more persuasive. For example, he states that

Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that have no

exceptions. So, for instance, if it is really wrong to lie, it must be always wrong to lie, and

if you can find an exception well then theres no such thing as a moral truth.

After stating the opposing view, he follows it up with the analogy of chess. In chess it is

generally smart to not lose your queen but there are times in the game when it is the best or only

move available. Next, Sam Harris concludes this anecdote with Chess is a perfect domain of
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
objectivity. The fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all. It is common for

Sam Harris to construct his arguments in this format where he clearly states the opposing view,

uses an example to reveal holes in the oppositions logic, and ends with a statement asserting his

view. Sam Harris then uses this example as a Segway into moral issues.

Through the use of images, Sam Harris is able to strengthen his argument by providing

visual examples regarding his argument. One of the examples Sam Harris uses to demonstrate

that there are morally right or wrong answer to a moral question is the wearing of the hijab. Sam

Harris argues that while many people shy away from saying whether the wearing the hijab is

moral right or wrong, it is apparent that the custom is meant to oppress women and therefore is

morally wrong. Alternatively, Sam Harris concedes that some women within Islam may report

that they want to wear a hijab and see it as empowering for women but Sam Harris dismisses this

argument by saying that you could measure the brains of people participating in the cultural

custom to determine if they actually want to be subjected to wearing the hijab. Additionally,

participants may report that they enjoy participating in the custom because they have fallen to

herd mentality. Herd mentality is when a person is influenced their peers to adopt beliefs or

behaviors that they otherwise would not. While Sam Harris is talking about a very serious topic,

he is able to diffuse the somber mood in the audience with humor since this is in a video format.

After his spiel about the hijab the audience was left quiet which Sam Harris could sense in the

room which allowed him to crack a small joke in the midst of this serious lecture in order to

maintain a connection between the audience and himself. Furthermore, he speaks directly to the

audience to express the gravity of the point he is making. For instance, when Sam Harris makes

the point that wearing a hijab has a morally right or wrong answer because women in the Middle

East will be murdered if they dont wear it, he follows it up by addressing the audience with
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
now let that sink in for a minute. The subtle use of this phrase allows the audience to reflect on

the argument he just made and exemplify why something such as wearing a hijab needs to be

viewed as having a morally right or wrong answer when this voluntary custom is accompanied

by severe consequences.

On the other hand, Mesels article is adamant that moral questions by nature cannot be

defined by one answer. Mesel is arguing that to state that a moral question has an absolute

answer would be narrowing the issue when he states in his article

to focus on moral judgments is to unnecessarily narrow the range of possible answers to

moral questions. It is not surprising, then, that many (but surely not all) of those who only

take moral judgments into account, exemplify this narrowing tendency by further limiting

the range of possible answers to narrow answers. (58)

Anecdotes that can seemingly be applied to common situations are continuously uses by Mesel

to illustrate his argument throughout the paper which aids in the readers understanding of his

stance. Despite Mesels perpetual use of anecdotes, his argument is reinforced by his reasoning

behind the outcomes related to those anecdotes. He opens his paper up with the anecdote

involving two men returning home from work and are faced with a question. One man has the

question as two which direction his home is while the other man wonders if he should leave his

wife. Mesel argues that these two questions have very different consequences to each mans

future and therefore require different amounts of thought and a variety of responses to each. The

man looking for directions back to his home has a definitive answer to his question when asking

a stranger for directions. The man thinking of leaving his wife on the other hand would not just

ask a passerby on the street if he should leave his wife and take the strangers answer that would

have a lot of bearing on his future. Using this example, Mesel describe a moral question as one
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
requiring more than a definitive yes or no style of answer. An answer to the question of leaving

someones life is a moral question that does not constitute a simple answer since there are a

multitude of factors influencing it. His explanations are crafted in a meticulous method which

creates a didactic tone as he informs the reader.

Additionally, this didactic tone makes his paper overall very formal. In an academic

journal it is imperative to have a serious tone in order to establish credibility. An academic

journal is intended for professionals within the field making there no need for extraneous detail

to fluff the paper. The best way for Mesel to convince his audience of his stance is to clearly and

concisely demonstrate why his stance is correct by supporting it with evidence. In other mediums

of presentation, the information can be presented in a more casual or flippant way without losing

the same credibility that you would in an academic journal. For this reason, at no point in this

article does Mesel attempt to make a joke or lighten the reading. All of the text in this article is

inserted purposefully and in a blunt manner. At times authors will insert diagrams or other

figures into their papers to further support their argument but because of the nature of Mesels

argument there wasnt a need for a visual representation. In most if not all science fields it is the

common convention to not have fluff or any extraneous information in an article; everything in a

scientific article is meant to be the most efficient way to directly relate to the argument being

made.

For each artifact there were clear differences in the strategy each author used to convince

their audiences of their stance. Sam Harris was not restricted to text and was able to use visuals

to express his opinions unlike Mesel. Conversely, Mesel had the benefit of laying out his stance

very precisely and logically without presenting himself in a personable manner. Since Sam

Harris was using a visual medium for his presentation he needed to present himself as
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
personable. Regardless of how logical Sam Harris argument was, if he did not come across as

intelligent, confident, and likeable to the audience then his argument would not have been

received well. To do this Sam Harris used humor, dressed nicely, and spoke clearly. Mesel

alternatively had to construct the text of his paper to clearly state his opinion. To do this Mesel

used many examples that walked through various examples showing why moral questions cant

have a unified answer.

In order to effectively convey a stance, it is required to understand how to properly relay

the information. While each artifact had to attack the same subject, to maintain credibility and

persuade the audience each author had to deploy different rhetorical appeals. Sam Harris was

able to take advantage of his media platform to make a personable argument that did not rely

solely on the evidence he was presenting. Mesel, on the other hand, chose to convey his thoughts

through an academic journal which initially established him credibility because of the medium

but limited the devices he could use to persuade the audience.

 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creature

which is the thesis that he is trying to prove.

attire

Intended audience

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right#t-597129

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=829d6b37-9533-4c41-aef1-

6d0c35de885d%40sessionmgr120