![]() He has taken much care in the preceding chapters to make it clear that he does not believe that evil exists, and that morality is not a product of religion. I feel that Shermer purposefully saved mentioning the gun control issue for last because it deals with the ideas of evil, morality, and religion. The problem, as conservatives saw it, was the evil souls of the people who used them to commit evil deeds (146). Liberal gun control advocates thoroughly ridiculed, Shermer notes that conservatives answered the call for more gun control by insisting that guns were not the problem. I believe creating this visual was probably the intent behind his humorous choice of words. His use of the word ‘squawking’ brings chickens to mind, and the great amount of noise they produce at the slightest provocation. He quips that those in favor of more gun control took advantage of the Columbine massacre by “squawking for more legislation” (146). Having logically dismantled the previous cases, Shermer turns his focus to the subject of gun control. Shermer has thus far proved to readers that outside influences do not cause a person to abandon their morality. By presenting these testimonies, he appeals to our common sense and ability to reason as intelligent individuals to realize that if video games caused people to behave violently, all gamers who played violent games would exhibit violent behavior, which is certainly not the case. They all point out that they have not been driven to violence by their gaming habits (143). Shermer shows how ridiculous the notion of video games being the causal factor is by relaying testimony of other players of violent games. He makes mention of several newspapers that make such a claim, but dismisses the articles as having been written by “wannabe social commentators” and “ad hoc social scientists” and lacking in evidence (143). Shermer uses logic to point out that none of these causes were relevant, particularly the idea that video game violence may have been the cause. Included in these causes were use of prescription drugs, cult or gang influence, a fatherless home, homosexuality, and exposure to violence in video games (143-144). He explains that in the aftermath of the event, many theories were put forth to rationalize the cause of Harris and Klebold’s murderous rampage. In building up to proving his argument, Shermer appeals to readers’ ability to reason by showing that outside influences do not cause a person to behave immorally. His description of the event along with a photograph of the black-clad, angry-looking murderers gives the reader a glimpse of the terror that must have been experienced by those unfortunate enough to have been present at the massacre. He describes to readers the massacre perpetrated at Columbine High School by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (141). Shermer begins his fifth chapter with an appeal to pathos. Taking all of this into consideration and having carefully analyzed this chapter, the reader is compelled by logic to agree with Shermer that one can have religion without morality, and morality without religion. Shermer has already proved that his arguments are well-supported by large quantities of evidence, which lets his audience know that what he is saying is inherently trustworthy. Judging by his use of vocabulary, he assumes his readers are also intelligent people, with whom he attempts to develop a connection through his intermittent use of humor. Shermer has, in his previous four chapters, taken care to establish ethos by demonstrating that he is an open-minded and intelligent fellow. In his chapter entitled “Can We Be Good Without God?” Michael Shermer’s objective is to prove that one does not need to be religious to be capable of moral behavior. Michael Shermer Successfully Proves That Humans Can Be Good Without God ![]() The writing assignment asks for an argument about how several rhetorical elements work together to create a functioning whole in a given chapter of Michael Shermer’s 2004 book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule. ![]() It was originally submitted double-spaced with no extra spaces between the lines, featured proper MLA pagination, and 1/2″ paragraph indents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |