THE PLACE OF VALUE IN ACTION

1. THE PLACE OF VALUE IN ACTION

2. RATIONALE • As the non--coercive means of social coordination, rhetoric is probably the most important tool of the human race. To the degree that we can convince others that “you should ‘do it my way’ because, on your own showing, mine is the RIGHT way,” we can effect cooperation while maintaining the dignity and sense of autonomy of all involved.

3. Acting autonomously involves making free (as opposed to random or coerced) choices, and “choice” always involves the actor’s asserting (overtly or tacitly) that “(I believe) (all things considered) ‘A’ is better than ‘B’” where “A” represents the option elected and “B” represents all options precluded by virtue of electing “A.” • Clearly, then, our ability to deal with others morally in our private lives and to ward off tyranny in our public lives depends on our ability to deal sensibly with claims involving value concepts—claims that are at least understood in all rhetorical situations; in every legitimate effort to persuade.

4. APPLICATION • A proposition of value is a claim that someone or something (the matter under consideration) is good or bad, noble or evil, desirable undesirable, etc.(the problematic) For instance, you might claim that

5. Laws requiring all restaurants to ban smoking are just/unjust. • Bill Clinton was a superlative/horrible president. • Sports programs are desirable/undesirable components of public high schools. • The Supreme Court decision authorizing the use of vouchers in private education was desirable/undesirable. • Affirmative action is a desirable/undesirable social policy. • Eliminating the Columbus Day holiday was sensible/ridiculous.

6. PROCEDURE • Proving a claim of this sort (sometimes called a "value proposition") entails two main tasks: • 1.        Criteria justification. The truth of any value claim depends on the truth of a more general claim. For example, the claim, "Laws requiring all restaurants to ban smoking are just/unjust" depends on there being such a thing as a "just law." The definition of "just law" in general, then, is logically prior to our ability to properly label any particular law as "just or unjust."

7. Importantly, the criteria justification cannot be a matter of taste. When we advance a truth claim, we gain a burden of proof for that claim and are obliged to give the audience good reasons for accepting it. For example, one might argue that the genius of the American system is its inherent distrust of government and its desire (expressed, for example, in the ninth and tenth amendments to our constitution) to minimize government presence. On such a view, we would reject any efforts to protect people from their own imprudence. That "just laws" in America are necessarily laws which respect that philosophy of government.

8. 1.        Apply the criteria to matter under consideration. In this step, the speaker shows how the matter under consideration (Laws requiring all restaurants to ban smoking) fits the criteria justification given. For example, it is easy to see that no one is required to patronize any restaurant. As a participant in the free market economy, the restaurant owner makes whatever decision will maximize the business goals. What will maximize profit? What will attract the sort of customers s/he wants to be around? The current law arrogates to the government the right to make some of those decisions and thus maximizes government presence. 3. Though the criteria is a logical requirement for any value assertion, it is typically (though not always) left out (enthymematically suppressed) of the presentation itself.