Aaron Ostler

Project 2
A Moral Answer (insert better title)* First 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 video artifact allows for the presentation of information to be more

personable. Sam Harris makes his argument personable by stating to the audience what most of

them believe 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 of better than the opposition can state their argument, then Sam Harris argument appears to

be more persuasive. Sam Harris states 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. 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 can be morally

right or wrong answer to a moral question is the wearing of the hijab. Sam Harris argues that

You will also need to evaluate the effectiveness of each text. You will want to identify the rhetorical
features of each of the artifacts and explain why they employ the strategies and appeals that they do.

Consider the following questions: How and why do your artifacts differ? What can you deduce about the
writing conventions and expectations of your field by examining each artifact? Look at the structure,
metaphorical language, rhetorical appeals, exigence, constraints, author, audience, purpose(s), use of
active and passive voice, visuals, tone, and formality of each artifact...what do you see and why do you
think its there?
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
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 in order to

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

may report that they enjoy participating in the custom because they have fallen to herd mentality.

While Sam Harris is talking about a very serious topic, he is able to diffuse to somber mood in

the audience with humor since this is in a video format. Furthermore, he is able to speak to the

audience the 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

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 a an absolute

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

You will also need to evaluate the effectiveness of each text. You will want to identify the rhetorical
features of each of the artifacts and explain why they employ the strategies and appeals that they do.

Consider the following questions: How and why do your artifacts differ? What can you deduce about the
writing conventions and expectations of your field by examining each artifact? Look at the structure,
metaphorical language, rhetorical appeals, exigence, constraints, author, audience, purpose(s), use of
active and passive voice, visuals, tone, and formality of each artifact...what do you see and why do you
think its there?
 Aaron Ostler
Project 2
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. His explanation 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. 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.

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.

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, in order to maintain

credibility and persuade the audience each author had to deploy different rhetorical appeals.

You will also need to evaluate the effectiveness of each text. You will want to identify the rhetorical
features of each of the artifacts and explain why they employ the strategies and appeals that they do.

Consider the following questions: How and why do your artifacts differ? What can you deduce about the
writing conventions and expectations of your field by examining each artifact? Look at the structure,
metaphorical language, rhetorical appeals, exigence, constraints, author, audience, purpose(s), use of
active and passive voice, visuals, tone, and formality of each artifact...what do you see and why do you
think its there?