Last week, we had some truly impressive responses to the thought question given to us by Chazz. I really appreciate the way everyone replied to the question honestly. Thanks for being so candid and open. I'm anxious to read your argument papers at the end of the semester!
This week, you will be posting to two separate blogs regarding the movie Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, our main character, Nick Naylor, earns his living by "spinning" the truth about tobacco and its effects on smokers.
What are some techniques that Naylor uses to make his arguments? Are his arguments "ethical"? Can you have a "good" argument that is also "unethical"? Should arguments strive to be ethical? What do you think? Use specific examples and dialogue from the movie to answer this question.
You will be receiving a second question on Thursday.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Naylor's job is to sell tobacco to the world. He will say anything that will make it sound good to do. He goes back by saying that it used to be in the movies and that we need to bring that back since people look up to these actors and wants to be just like them. He goes to L.A. to get this job done and goes on saying that smoking is a great thing and that we should smoke. He goes about saying "Don't do drugs, Smoke". Smoking will make you cool so do it. Me personally, I don't think so. Smoking kills, my own father has a a heart attack in the last year and half because of his smoking since 11 years old. He is okay now and he has given up all tobacco. Thank you God.
He uses his words to kind of manipulate people and the truth. He kept saying if you argue correctly you're never wrong. Naylor always has the right thing to say, even if it isn't the most ethical of solution. The question on if he is ethical in this movie is a question that can't really be answered. He's good at what he does that's how he makes a living. When he smooth talked Marboral guy into taking the money it wasn't exactly the most ethical thing in my opinion, however, he didn't tell him to take the money, they man did that on his own.
Dani
When he argues he tries to prove the other person wrong so he looks right, instead of proving himself right. I would say his arguments are probably not ethical because like i said before, he never proves himself right. You can definately have a good arguement that as unethical, if you make yourself look right in your argument and its unethical then it was still a good argument. I dont think arguments necessarily need to be ethical because there is no rule anywhere saying they have to be and its the person that is doing the arguments choice how they approach it.
I thionk Naylor is very tricky at what he does. He plays with your mind to make you get so confused and lost in conversation that at the end you don't even remember what you were talking about. Some of his arguments are ethical , but he is so sneaky at what he does. A good argument can be unethical , but it may not be a good one. I think that all arguments should strive to be ethical to better the situation no argument is ever a good one in my eyes.
Nick says that if you prove the other person wrong, then that makes you right. I think he's right. He knows the dangers of smoking, but like he said, he needs to pay the mortgage. It's something that he's good at, then why try to find another career. It looks like he enjoys it.
-Chris Gaskill
I think that the main technique Nick Naylor uses in his Arguments is Diversion. He may not prove his point right, but he can disprove yours! He does this several times to that hippy senator. Whether his arguments are ethical or not are all personal opinion. Some may think it is unethical to offer the marlboro man money, but he did accept it! Some people may feel they are, others not. You can definetely have a good argument that is not ethical, it happens all the time. I do not think arguments have to strive to be ethical, because then again it is all personal opinion.
In the movie Nick says that if he can prove someone else wrong, then he's never wrong. It's really not ethical because he doesn't even listen to the other side of the argument. I'm sure he's aware that smoking causes cancer and other diseases, but he's so blinded by his job that he looks the other way. His arguments are good, he gets his point across very well, but he avoids the truth. His arguments are very unethical.
-abshafer
Some techniques used by Naylor arejust smart. He uses different ways to charm his viewers and listeners. One example of his argument is that is not proven that smoking kills people, the cancer does. Also he says if he could prove that the other party is wrong in any way, his side is right.I believe you can promote something harmful and still have a good heart.
Cy Wynn
Nick Naylor seldom succeeds in defending tobacco; instead, he twists the words of his accusers. His charisma and quick wit make up for the fact that he has no credible defence for the tobacco industry.
On a different tangent, I think that you can have a "good" argument that is unethical. The argument itself is good because it is well presented and grounded in logic; it doesn't have to be ethical. I personally think that the only arguments worth making are ethical ones, but, as Naylor so bluntly expressed, "We all gotta pay the mortgage." I think people often take unethical stands for personal gain (or self-preservation). Do you think Naylor feels guilty about his job?
-Adrian
I think Nick is right on somethings. he tells his son that if you have a good argument it proves the other person wrong. I somke, and have tried many times to quit.If I remember right, onother thing Nick mentions later in the movie is that a person could smoke there whole life and not get cancer. Many don't even smoke and die from second hand smoke. I have heard smokers say maybe I will be one of those people who smoke and never get lung cancer. Even though I dont like(to pay) the tax raises on ciggarettes, I think it is a good idea.
In the movie Naylor always has a arguement to a question not a nogotiation. Naylor said," that is the beauty of arguement if you argue correctly you're never wrong." I believe that his arguements are ethical because he is trying to stand up for his company. In the movie he has a good arguement with the man who did the cigarette ads. He said that if he takes the money and goes to the news the only thing he can do with the money is give it to charity. It would be unethical for him to take the money and go to the news and just keep the money then it would be like he is help the cigarette companies.
Naylor tries to prove him self right in several different settings. He states, "what ever you say you can't be wrong." I question what is right and wrong? To one person something can be right and ethical, but to another it could be wrong and unethical. Throughout the whole video I don't think that he honestly ever proves himself right. He has some smart tactics in targeting teens to smoke, at the same time he is selling the tobacco industry.
Tyler Rygg- Nick Naylor tells his son, "I don't have to prove I'm right. I just have to prove you're wrong". This is one technique that he uses in his arguments. He doesn't attempt the daunting task of proving cigarettes aren't bad. He simply states there is no conclusive evidence. I would say his arguments are unethical but it is absolutely true that you can have a good argument that is unethical. I do not think arguments should strive to be ethical. They should strive to make people see things their way.
Naylor uses different rhetoric to persuade people. He also uses different rhetoric to disprove other people’s arguments. Are his arguments "ethical"? He makes a couple of mentions of his ethics so far in this movie. One is Naylor says that individuals as well as corporations disserve to be defended and protected. He also says that he would have taken the money if he was the Marlboro Man. This sounds pretty Kantian to me. As for a “good” argument being ethical no sound, unsound, valid, invalid, cogent, argument has any bearing on its ethics. Here we are talking apples and oranges. Argument shouldn’t strive to be ethical; ethics should strive to be ethical.
Chris Brown
In this movie Nick says,"that's the beuaty of arguement, if you argue your never wrong." This is true to a certain extent because if you personally think what you are arguing is true than you will never feel wrong or against your own thoughts throughtout the arguement. Nick doesn't always prove that his points are right, but what he does prove by the end of each arguement is that the other person's arguement is wrong. This makes his arguement right. Most of Nick's arguements aren't really ethical and it would be very difficult to have a good arguement that was unethical. It can't be a good arguement if the overall picture is unethical.
Blake Vorrath
Nick Naylor uses a lot of rethorical analysis, such as logos, pathos and ethos. He uses specificly ethos, regarding his arguments towards smoking. Is it bad for you?
I think that arguments has to be ethical! In the movie, he explains to his son, as well as teaching him how to have a good argumentation, and not negotation.
He persuades people with his credibility of ethics and tries to make his points to be heard.
Such as in the example from the movie, when he talks to his son about Vanilla ice cream and Chocolate ice cream. He thinks that Vanilla ice cream is better than Chocolate, but his son thinks differently.
He makes his argument stands up and proves that other poeple are wrong. He says," I have proved them wrong (people who loves chocolate), we who love vanilla also need more of vanilla ice cream." I found it so cleverly interesting how he does that to people for his living.
But then come back to Nick Naylor's main point," It was an argument not a negotiation."
Nick Naylor was all about selling tabacco no matter what the cost.He will say what ever he has to,to get people to agree with him. That smoking is cool.It isnt ethical for Naylor to bribe the Marborol guy into taking bribe money to make sure he keeps quiet about what tabacco did to him. He contradicts himself in an interview saying that they are trying to get kids to not smoke but then turns around and says so they can keep on smoking.LeeAnn
Naylor was a bussiness man in selling tabaco around the world, and they also said that is not prove that tabaco or cigarets produce lung cancer, It was a lot of money involved in this bussiness . He went to L.A. CA. to improve the sell of this product, and he was talking to the righ people in these bussiness, he also went to Washington DC to talk to some of senators and they wanted to put some label of poison on the cigarrets that warning to people of it. In my family we don't have smokers I am not part of smokers of involve with any tabaco, or cigarete, or alchol etc, I think people shoul know that the is unhealty and dangerous for our health. The tittle it shoul be "thanks for no smoke".
In the movie, "Thank You For Smoking," Nick Naylor's job includes proving people to be wrong about thinking that smoking is bad for you and leads to death. He turns it around so he looks right and they are wrong. His ways of pursuading people may not be ethical due to the fact that he is playing games with their minds just so he can be right. As he kept telling his son, if you argue correctly you're never wrong as long as you have a strong argument.I feel he is good at what he does because he has different techniques on how he argues his points.
-Brittany Hagge-
In this movie Naylor's job is to get people to smoke. He says and does about anything to get his point across. He then has to go to L.A. for a job. When he is there he goes on saying "Don't do durgs, Smoke". He tells peopel that smoking is cool so do it. In my eyes I feel that smoking is very bad. The second hand smoke does more than what the person smoking gets. Either way it is bad for a person. So I feel that his arguments are not very truthful. I'm sticking to thinking that smoking is bad!
Naylor is just like any other person he uses what he has and changes to his ideas. Anyone can do it he is just better at it then others. I do believe u can have both ethical and unethical arguments. Myself on the other hand is yea smoking is bad. People just have to find a way to make him look like someone is wrong without making themselves look like crimals. For if arguments should be ethical thats hard to say. Both sides at times are both you can not just say oo well this side is fighting the argument this way because so many people are one sided on topics they dont realize what they are doing is just the same as the other side.
JOEL KRAMER
Nick Naylor uses medical research and the fact that there is no confirmed link between smoking and cancer to convince people to smoke. No. You can have a good argument that's unethical as long as you seem like you know what you are talking about and can convince people that what you say is the truth.
Farron Fiedler Jr.
Naylor is a pro at winning arguments. He knows all the ins-and-outs and can twist peoples thoughts and perceptions to meet his. The way he argues virtually makes it so it doesn't matter if his argument is ethical or not. Which I don't think really matters because he isn't trying to prove that smoking is ethical he is trying to prove that it is ok to do. He doesn't even have to argue for cigarettes to be good at what he does he can argue for anything and make it sound good. He comes across as very knowledgable on his topics and makes people think outside the box in a way.
Naylor uses persuasiveness to try and get his point across. He will also argue but tell you want you want to hear. Yes, I believe arguments should be ethical. I don't feel I could argue for something that I do not feel is right, like smoking. I would not be able to try to get kids to smoke while having my own child. I would not want my own child smoking and therefore I would not be able to promote it as Naylor does.
In the movie, "Thank You For Smoking," Nick Naylor pursuades people that smoking is not the leading factor of death. He uses different techniques to pursuade people. He kept saying that if you have a good argument you'll always be right. I don't think his arguments were ethical due to the fact he was playing games with people's mind. Nick feels that you need a strong argument, and that is exactly what he does.
Brittany Hagge
I don't think it is possible to make a good argument and be unethical. However, different people have different moral standards. Naylor argued confidently to show the "positive" side of smoking by taking it to Hollywood. Most kids look up to actors and he persuades the younger audience into thinking smoking is cool. Afterall, the tobacco industry was trying to acquire young clients, because they were their number one customer. When role models do acts that are commonly looked at as immoral, then the younger people will look up to them and eventually probably do those same acts. Naylor does his job with savvy. He ultimately could care less if tobacco kills people, because he is doing what he needs to do to provide financially for himself. He doesn't make a sound argument, because it is unethical. The reason he is successful is because he knows how to persuade an age group that is irresponsible.
Brokaw
Nick Naylor is more interested in persuading his audience than the person that he is arguing against. The “if your wrong, I’m right” argument.
Ethical or not it is hard to say. He is bending the truth but his logic is sound. One could argue many topics that seem unethical, but if they information presented makes sense then why would it truly be wrong. Because the majority disagree with that opinion it is all of the sudden unethical. What is ethical to one person may seem horrific to another. Who is to say who is right.
And how does someone strive to be ethical. What about controversial topics. Some people view them one way and others may view it completely differently. So how do we strive to be ethical when ethics vary so much from person to person.
In the movie "Thank You For Smoking", Nick Naylor makes numerous arguments about smoking even though they all are wrong and unethical he got his message across and some agreed with him. He was talking to a classroom of kids about his job and one example of an unethical argument is he said, "You should try things for yourself." (Which was in response to a question of was he telling the kids to smoke.) You can have good arguments that are unethical everyone does you just have to know how to make things look good and appealing to the ones who are listening to your argument. Not everyone will agree with this but in the movie, at the beginning, this is very true with the talk show about the kid who has cancer and some of the points he makes about the anti-teen smoking campaign, which drew the host into him instead of pushing her to the other side.
Naylor was a very persuasive speaker. One of his quotes is "If you argue correctly, you're never wrong." He may make great arguements but that still doesn't make them ethical. On the flip side; arguements don't have to be ethical, we can see this clearly in how effective Naylor was at spinning the truth. He uses "friendlier" words to make many things that would otherwise sound terrible seem alright.
Nick Naylor's arguments may or may not be ethical, but living in America does give him the right to freedom of speech. Tabacco companies, alcohol and other companies that might relate to these also have the right to freedom of speech. It all boils down to politics and I can not see much that comes out of politics that is ethical. Most in the public eye will will say whatever and argue whatever to win the argument and convice as many as they can. Louann Philpott
I'm personally against cigarettes, although I do attend a hooka bar on occasion. I think that it is our right to be able to choose, but I also think that we should better educate people with knowledge about consequences of certain life styles and how they affect the people around us.
It would be nice if arguements had to be ethical but that's not always the case and sometimes unethical arguments can be presented well.
The quote from the movie, "That's the beauty of arguements, if you argue correctly you're never wrong." shows that and unethical arguement can be correct if you compose the desired bottom line.
In the movie Naylor's arguements are unethical even though he uses his persuasion techniques well and correctly argues his point.
I hate this blog stuff. I just had a perfect blog typed up about the movie and then I tried to sign in and it was all deleted.
I had said that I'm against cigarettes although I attend a hooka bar on occasion.
I think it's our right to be able to choose, but people need to be more educated on consequences of particular life styles on ourselves and the affects they have on the people around us.
Arguements don't have to be ethical in order to get the point across well even though it would be nice if arguements more often than not strove to be ethical.
The character Naylor in the movie tells his son, "The beauty of arguing is that if you argue correctly you're never wrong."
By saying this, Naylor is saying that your arguement doesn't always have to be ethical to be correct.
Niki C
English 106
I am in complete agreement with the saying that you can never be wrong in an argument. Who can say that you are wrong when you have a good argument? Some people won’t agree with it but they can’t say that it was wrong. I just believe that arguments are made to stick up for what you think is right. Define ethical. I mean it depends really on who you are asking
brad carlson
As Naylor says, "The beauty of argument is that if you argue correctly, then you're never wrong." His arguments may not 100% ethical, but they are effective none the less. Arguments don't have to be ethical. Arguments are two seperate opinions colliding for who will win out. When you argue, you use what you know, and you do exactly what Naylor does; spin the truth.
Nick uses diversion to help win his arguements. He may not prove that he right, but he will prove you wrong by confusing you with examples from other topics. He did that with his son at the pier, using the ice cream flavors. Arguments aren't always ethical, because sometimes the topic isn't ethical. Nick used people who murder children as an example. You may think that the person doesn't deserve the trial, but they still have the right for a fair trial.~Amanda Hall
caleb avery
I think you can definetly have a good argument that is unethical, all taht means is that you get your point across and make people at least think differently. some of the teqniuqes that nick uses in the movie are sidestepping the issue and turning the blame off of him and makeing someone else look bad. i dont think his arrguments are nessicarily unethical because someone has to take that side and do the job. He might even need to be that supportive of it to allow others to choose to smoke.
Nick uses his ability to change how a person’s out look on the argument. In most cases he will change the argument to a different form. Instead of the actual argument he will change it in just the right way to make his point valid. His arguments may not be very ethical in most cases the arguments are very close to being unethical. Arguments should be ethical. The problem is that depending on which side of the argument you may not be ethical.
I think that in Nick's attemp to sell his view point and get people to smoke, he turns the questions around. He never really completely answers the questions when asked about how smoking kills. I don't think that a lot of his points are ethical. He feels that being right is all that matters no matter what the cost. He is always saying that he is never wrong, even if he can't prove his point to be right as long as he disproves the other side then that is all that matters.I think that arguments should stive to be ethical. I can not think of one good argument that is unethical. Especially with this movie I love how the lady with alcohol and the man from safety and Naylor all sit around trying to figure out to see their product to the public even though they themselves know how harmful their product is.
Andrea Bollenbaugh
Jinny
On the movie "Thank You For Smoking" the main character, Nick Naylor, is an excelent spokesman. Some of the techniques he uses are good such as having proof that many things about smoking aren't proven yet, so nobody can argue an effective argument back. Also he's very quick to answer, and studies the person that's interviewing him so he can point out something unethical they've done. Yes, I believe that you can have a good argument that is unethical. Such as this movie many people think smoking is bad, but Naylor outwits everybody he's talked to so far about it. No, arguments shouldn't strive to be ethical, as long as you can prove your side of the argument, you've won.
Naylor has a way of finessing his use of the “Big Tobacco” argument. He does not specifically go out to prove that smoking is healthy, because it most certainly is not. However his focus is concentrated to disprove the “environmentalists” view that smoking is unhealthy. Naylor uses facts from research that prove that smoking has inconclusive results relating to cancer.
What he is arguing for is probably viewed as unethical to the majority of the population. In the movie many people think that he is directly responsible for the massive amount of smoking related deaths in the US. I don’t think that his argument is unethical. He is not forcing people to smoke, he is merely making suggestions. It is the people’s choice of whether to smoke or not. I think it is possible to have a good argument even if what you are supporting is unethical. The movie thus far has proven this, especially when Naylor breaks it down for his son. He seems to have found, in his own way, the doctrine of argument.
Naylor, in his arguments, uses a lot of ethos and logos (along with the occassional pathos). For example, when Naylor speaks to his son about his essay, he resonds to the question of "How is America's government the best government?" he responds with something along the lines of "Who says America's government is the best?" And I couldn't say if Naylors arguments are ethical, I believe ethics are a more personal issue. But I doubt even Naylor could say if his own arguments are ethical. He's arguing for his side, 'paying the mortgage.' Some of his methods may be questionable but the other side of the argument is doing the same. Take Macy's character for example, he uses 'Cancer Boy' to gain people's sympathy. Perhaps not all arguments are ethical, but maybe we should wonder if the way one argues them is.
Mollie B.
One of Nick's best arguments is about making the opponent wrong while making himself out to be the the god guy. he points out that tobacco companies don't want their customers to die so they can make more money. It is the activists that want the deaths to help prove their point against the tobacco companies. I think that his argument has a good point in that by having consumers die it hurts the tobacco companies business. It is possible to present a good argument that could also be unethical although i cannot think of one off the top of my head.
i think that as long as your argument proves your side and points out the falsities of your opponents then it is ok to use the argument. Yes tobacco companies don't want their companies to die but those groups that are against smoking require these deaths to prove their stance. I remember hearing on the radio two years ago that there was a study done on people who smoke for pleasure a few times a week lived an average of 5 years longer than those who didn't. It is thought to be because smoking relaxed and destressed these people. Just a little food for thought.
Brnadon Harrison
In the movie nick naylor oftin starts an argument with a rethorical question. from the talk shows to the staff meetings. he used words very accuratly to pursade the listeners to take his side, most of the time. i feel that it would create a good arguement. however,i really dont think it would make a difference if an argument was ethical or not as long as you got the point across to the audience. a good example of this would be in the movie nick said a very interesting comment "if you argue correctly your never wrong." Greg Call
alreed1
Nick Naylor has a difficult job as a spokesperson for smoking tobacco and he does a good job. Nick makes good points to the argument although, it doesn't make them ethical. Nick uses pursuasion, making it seem like smoking isn't bad for you in his arguments. Arguments don't necessarily have to be ethical, it depends on what angle and what the argument is on.
As other blogs have said He doesn't try to prove that he's right but that the otherside of the argument is not nessarly right. I think that this method has an effect of kind of confusing the opponent. Is it "unethical"? probably, does that make it bad? That probably depends on which side your on. As with wars both sides think that there the good guys and that other side is at least wrong. So even though I may totally desagree with an argument does not mean that someone else does not have the right to lobby their view of the subject. If they didn't then the "Bill of Rights" doesn't really mean much. Right?
Aryn said...
Naylor's job is to sell tobacco, not to warn people of all the health problems. He is in an argument with the senator, who is trying to put a huge poison symbol on the cigerate packages. Naylor doesn't go against the senator in saying that tobacco is good for you, he simply says that it's cool and fun. As he explains to his son, winning an argument isn't proving the other person/side wrong it is simply proving your own side true. Therefore, Naylor's argument is true to some it is fun and for his own experience with cigerates the fact that he smoked actually saved his life. So from his side of the argument he holds true in what he says.
In the movie Thank You For Smoking, Nick Naylor states “Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent.” Although it is Nick Naylor’s job to sell cigarettes, he doesn’t see it that way. He doesn’t see the millions of people dying due to the product that he stands behind. Instead, he sees himself as a man with the ability to talk. Naylor is a man that has an amazing way of twisting things around in order to make himself appear correct. He believes that he’s using his talent in order to create a living for himself.
Naylor’s arguments aren’t entirely ethical, but he still gets his point across. An argument doesn’t necessarily have to be ethical in order to be good. Even though Naylor is promoting a harmful product, he knows how to argue and always make himself appear to be right.
As a lobbyist his job is to get his arguments across and convince others he is right. It doesn't really have anything to do with ethics. Some people may choose not to do this job or one's that they don't believe are ethical, but that is personal choice. Just because you argue something doesn't mean that it is true for all people. People have different ethics. Amy Hampton
I think that arguments dont have to be ethical, just effective. If someone really believes what they are saying then isn't it ethical to them? I think ethics are just subjective. Nick seems to really believe in what he's saying so who are we to tell him that he's not ethical? I think he makes some very good arguments.
Chris Naylor is a extremely good at seeming credible. His sly attitude and warming smile give off a sense of honesty. Even though everyone who meets Naylor seems to have a deep hatred for him, he always seems very content in the fact that he is not single handedly responsible for all of the negative effects of smoking, although he does contribute to the problem. It interest that his only true friends (the MOD squad) do basically the same "damage" that he does, just in different,unique fields.
I belive if you are going to have an argument with any substance or meaning that it should be honest and ethical. Otherwise you are just arguing with falacies and untruths. What is the point of arguing about something that you can neither prove or backup? If an argument is not honest or ethical then it is probably merely for the sake of argument and not for the sake of proving the truth or getting the honest evidence out there to educate the public or your arguing partner. Do you not feel better/ stronger if you argue with facts and evidence to back up your words? Are you not more empowered by hard facts about the things which you speak?
Post a Comment