Review the scenarios from the Steven Pinker’s article devised by Jonathan Haidt (pg. 431). Why are those scenarios considered so morally repugnant? In his own conclusions, such as his remarks on climate change, Pinker arguably falls prey to the same fallacies caused by moral rationalization that he attributed to others. When morality and moral questions are closely examined, the distinction between moral concern and practical ones often blurs.
Swift/Pinker Argument Essay Structure:
Introduction: Introduce essays and mention the use of morally repugnant examples used by each author. Be sure to mention that Swift is using satire and that Pinker is using examples from Jonathan Haidt. Swift mentions practical remedies to the situation in Ireland satirically-and promptly dismisses them satirically-while Pinker mentions practical solutions to climate changes seriously and dismisses those seriously. YOUR THESIS/ARGUMENT: Which dismisses of practical solutions is most effective, if effective at all?
Background- Swift: Give the background information about “A Modest Proposal” and “The Moral Instinct.”
Lines of Argument: Present good reasons (including logical and emotional appeals) in support of your argument. Present reasons in order of importance, with most important ones saved for last.
Alternative arguments: Mention at least one alternative point of view. Why might someone think that Pinker’s dismissal of practical solutions is superior to Swift’s satirical dismissal? Note advantages and disadvantages of alternative views. Explain why your view is superior to an alternative one.
Conclusion: Summarize the argument if you choose. Elaborate on the implication of your thesis. Make clear what you want readers to think or do. Reinforce your credibility.