critical thinking assignment

Conflict Viewpoints

Strayer University

Willie Ramirez

Professor Capers

PHI210

October 24, 2015

Introduction

Conflicts are differences or disagreements that when individuals have varying points of view that may be ideologically against each other. Conflicts occurrence always interfere with how individuals relate with each other. In order to ensure that conflicting parties find an amicable solution, a good conflict analysis strategy should be devised so that the conflicting individuals can come to terms with one another.

A conflict solution strategy is always detailed; a mediator is required to have relevant and adequate information about the issue to which these conflicting individuals have disagreed on. It is always necessary that the mediator should avoid taking sides or being biased about specific issues so that he or she doesn’t disagree with the individuals to which he or she wishes to settle their conflict (Peter, 2006). Conflict analysis always requires a more detailed critical thinking by involving oneself in the process of trying to find the reasons to approve or disapprove certain views to which each of the conflicting parties raise.

In this article different issues are described and brought to book according to the varying effects to which these conflicting viewpoints have to each other. It is very evident that a certain approved topic to which detailed ideologies to which individuals argue about are brought to a comprehensive scrutiny without biasing one individual’s point of view (Graff, 2003). Three important reasons for approving a certain ideology say an advantage or a disadvantage and gives further detailed reasons for either supporting or not supporting the proposed point of view.

Each of the stated reasons is very important to be discussed and give premises that disapprove my own point of view about the ideologies stated. Several questions relating to ideologies proposed are to be answered in accordance to a detailed overview of what all these ideologies are about. These questions include; what is interesting about this view? What would I notice if I believed this view? In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?

Logic is the form of reasoning or reflecting on a certain stated point conducted by an individual under the monitor of strict principles that aim at making these form of reasoning valid. The need or necessity of having good knowledge about a certain ideology to which an individual wants to reason-evaluate it is an important this reasoning than using inferential reasoning where an individual identifies the disadvantages of a certain issue and gives conclusions based on the disadvantages identified. Logical reasoning can expose a candid error in a certain individual argument; logic reasoning is to some extent undetailed since it can’t uncover an individual’s position about a certain ideology in an argument (Tannen, 1998).

Logic can be used to fortify an argument for or against a certain stated ideology or proposition, but this method of detailed reasoning cannot be used to prove or disapprove this proposed claim. An individual cannot substantiate that a certain opinion is either right or wrong; it is because of this reason that an individual will likely change his or her mind when another individual identifies bad thinking in their arguments.

In many arguments individuals argue varyingly from each other, their arguments are always based on certain ideologies to which may either support be against another individuals position or point of view. Individuals’ ideas are always supported by the premises or reasons they give about their arguments, these reasons include; people love to argue and disagree about certain ideologies since they do it for fun in a friendly way (Peter, 2006). Other individuals seeing that they can justify their propositions in an argument give up since they have no important ideology to ascertain. The other reason why individuals argue is because the ideology they propose and support is seen by many as the best suitable about the issue they are arguing about.

The above premises may be wrong or right depending on the justification given by the individual suggesting it. Other individuals may find a certain ideology right no matter how hard they find it in giving reasons as to why they are supporting the ideology. This rigidity of not supporting another individual’s point of view describes how conservative the unsupportive individuals are (Peter, 2006).

Individuals find fun in arguments, these individuals will stand by their opinions despite since they are thrilled by how the arguments fair on. The interesting thing about this premise is that individuals fail to provide concrete ideas supporting their point of view. What is notable if this view is believed is that an individual will not be able to find the solution to the conflict that inspired the argument (Graff, 2003)? There is no condition under which the idea of arguing for fun may be justified as being true.

Individuals who give up on arguments can’t give substantial ideas to the point of view and therefore describes the importance of providing detailed ideas before supporting a certain ideology. An individual will never conclude his or her argument and it is only advised to use this premise to justify the ideas of a third party who is not majorly involved in an argument (Tannen, 1998). The reason of individuals have bad arguments based on the number of people supporting a certain ideology is helpful in determining how the stated ideology can influence peoples’ points of view about a certain issue. This premise can be true only if the ideology being supported by many people is justifiably correct and supportive in modeling an argument.

Conclusion

As evidently described in these article individuals base their arguments on certain beliefs to which they view as justified. The relevance of these premises can be ascertained if these premises or reasons enable an arguing party in argument to consider other points of view and the importance these points help shape up the whole argument.

References

Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. New Haven: Yale University Publishers.

Peter, E. (2006). The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful . A chapter in Nurturing the Peacemakers in Our Students: A Guide to Teaching Peace,, 13-20.

Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to Dialogue. Random House Publishers.