Aaron Ostler

ENC 2135-0064

Eleanor Boudreau

27 Oct. 2017

A Moral Answer

For centuries the issue as to whether questions of morality can have a definitive answer

has stymied many philosophers. Questions of morality encompass decisions we make and beliefs

we hold relating to our judgement as to what is right and wrong. On each side of this divisive

question lies a different approach in explaining why questions of morality have, or do not have, a

unified answer. Sam Harris and Benjamin De Mesel each reason their way into two very

different conclusions regarding this subject, but what is fascinating is their methods of approach

in persuading their audience. Harris audience of wealthy professionals likely does not consist of

many persons specialized in the field of philosophy. Since Harris audience is not well versed in

this topic he must lay down a foundation of knowledge regarding morality before he can

extensively explain his argument. Conversely, Mesels article is directed towards professionals

within the field of philosophy. Mesel is able to quickly begin making his argument for his stance

on morality since his audience is knowledgeable in this topic and do not require background

information to understand the stance he is taking. While both authors are posed with the

challenge of convincing their audience that their stance is the correct one, they each utilize

different techniques to accomplish their task.

To begin, the first artifact is a video from a Ted Talk which allows for the presentation

of information to be more personable and engaging. Harris makes his argument relatable by

presenting to the unspecialized audience opposing position beliefs regarding the subject. By
stating what most people believe, the listeners included, Harris is both appealing to the crowd on

an emotional level, as well as recognizing the opposing position. The acknowledgement of the

other sides reasoning is very strategic on Harris part to establish a powerful justification. If

Harris is able to state the opposing explanation as well, or better, than they can themselves; then

Harris argument may appear more persuasive. For example, he states that

Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that have no

exceptions. So, for instance, if it is really wrong to lie, it must be always wrong to lie, and

if you can find an exception well then theres no such thing as a moral truth.

After stating the opposing view, he follows it up with the analogy of chess. In chess it is

generally smart to not lose your queen, but there are times in the game when it is the best, or the

only move available. Next, Harris concludes this anecdote with Chess is a perfect domain of

objectivity. The fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all. It is common for

Harris to construct his rationale in this format where he clearly states the opposing view, uses an

example to reveal holes in the oppositions logic, and ends with a statement asserting his view.

Harris then builds on this example as a segue into moral issues.

Through the presentation of images, Harris is able to strengthen his argument by

providing visual examples of his argument. One of the illustrations Harris uses to demonstrate

that there are right or wrong answers to a moral question is the wearing of the hijab. Harris

argues that while many people shy away from saying whether the wearing the hijab is right or

wrong, it is apparent that the custom is meant to oppress women, and therefore is morally wrong.

Alternatively, Harris concedes that some women within Islam may report that they want to wear

a hijab and see it as empowering for women, but Harris dismisses this argument by saying that

you could measure the brains of people participating in the cultural custom to determine if they
actually want to be subjected to wearing the hijab. Additionally, participants may report that they

enjoy participating in the custom because they have fallen into herd mentality. Herd, or

mob, mentality is when a person is influenced by pressure from their peers to adopt beliefs or

behaviors that they otherwise would not. While Harris is talking about a very serious topic, he is

able to defuse the somber mood in Harris audience with humor since this is in a video format.

After his spiel about the hijab Harris listeners were left silent, which Harris could sense in the

room, allowing him to crack a small joke amid this serious lecture in order to maintain a

connection between the audience and himself. Since Harris audience is not particularly

knowledgeable of this specific topic they are likely unaccustomed to hearing a candid view on

Islamic culture. Another reason he is able to have a blunt discussion regarding Islam without

violent outcry from the public, is that his audience is in a western nation and educated.

Furthermore, he speaks directly to the attendees to express the gravity of the point he is making.

For instance, when Harris makes the point that wearing a hijab has a morally right or wrong

answer because women in the Middle East will be murdered if they dont wear it, he follows it

up by addressing his captive attendees with now let that sink in for a minute. The subtle use of

this phrase allows the audience to reflect on the argument he just made, exemplifying why an act,

such as wearing a hijab, needs to be viewed as having a morally right or wrong answer, when

this voluntary custom is accompanied by severe consequences. This phrase is used for

dramatic effect and is effective in the context of a Ted Talk but would be considered

unprofessional if it were used in a paper intended to be published in an academic journal.

On the other hand, Mesels article is adamant that moral questions by nature cannot be

defined by one answer. Mesel is arguing that to state that a moral question has an absolute

answer would be narrowing the issue when he states in his article

 to focus on moral judgments is to unnecessarily narrow the range of possible answers to

moral questions. It is not surprising, then, that many (but surely not all) of those who only

take moral judgments into account, exemplify this narrowing tendency by further limiting

the range of possible answers to narrow answers. (58)

Anecdotes that can seemingly be applied to common situations are continuously implemented by

Mesel to illustrate his argument throughout the paper aiding in the readers understanding of his

stance. Despite Mesels perpetual use of anecdotes, his argument is reinforced by his reasoning

behind the outcomes related to those narratives. He opens his paper up with the story involving

two men returning home from work being faced with a question. One man has the question as to

which direction his home is, while the other man wonders if he should leave his wife. Mesel

argues that these two questions have very different consequences to each mans future, and

therefore require different amounts of thought and a variety of responses to each. The man

looking for directions back to his home has a definitive answer to his question when asking a

stranger for directions. The man thinking of leaving his wife on the other hand would not just ask

a passerby on the street if he should leave his wife and take the strangers irrelevant answer

given the gravity of the dilemma. Using this example, Mesel describe a moral question as one

requiring more than a definitive yes or no style of answer. An answer to the question of leaving

someones spouse is a moral question that does not constitute a simple answer, since there are a

multitude of factors influencing it. His explanations are crafted in a meticulous method which

creates a didactic tone as he informs the reader.

Additionally, this pedagogic modality makes his paper overall very formal. In an

academic journal it is imperative that one set a serious tone in order to establish credibility. An

academic journal is intended for professionals within the field and contains works typically free
of extraneous detail and fluff. The best way for Mesel to convince his audience of philosophers

of his stance is to clearly and concisely demonstrate why his stance is correct by supporting it

with evidence. In other mediums of presentation, the information can be presented in a more

casual manner without losing the same credibility that you would in an academic journal. For

this reason, at no point in this article does Mesel attempt to make a joke or lighten the reading.

All of the text in this article is inserted purposefully and in a blunt manner. At times authors will

insert diagrams or other figures into their papers to further support their reasoning but because of

the nature of Mesels argument there was not a need for a visual representation. In most science

fields, if not all, it is the common convention to not have fluff or any extraneous information in

an article; everything in a scientific article is meant to be the most efficient way to directly relate

to the argument being made.

For each artifact there were clear differences in the strategy each author used to convince

their audiences of their stance. Harris was not restricted to text and was able to use physical

images to visually express his opinions, unlike Mesel. Conversely, Mesel had the benefit of

laying out his stance very precisely and logically without presenting himself in a personable

manner. Since Harris was using a visual medium for his presentation he needed to express

himself in a somewhat interactive manner. Regardless of how logical Harris argument was, if he

did not come across as intelligent, confident, and likeable to his audience of ordinary persons

then his argument would not have been received as well. To do this Harris used humor, dressed

nicely, and spoke clearly. Mesel alternatively had to construct the text of his paper to clearly

state his opinion. To do this Mesel used many examples that walked through various examples

showing why moral questions cannot have a unified answer.

 In order to effectively convey a stance, it is required to understand how to properly relay

the information. While each artifact had to attack the same subject, to maintain credibility and

persuade their respective audience each author had to deploy different rhetorical appeals. Harris

was able to take advantage of his media platform to make a personable argument that did not rely

solely on the evidence he was presenting. Mesel, on the other hand, chose to convey his thoughts

through an academic journal which initially established him credibility, because of the medium,

but limited the number of available devices he could use to persuade his philosophically sounds

readers.

A Moral Answer Reflection

Writing a paper on moral questions by examining the different methods authors use to

persuade an audience was very intriguing. Overall, there were components of this paper that

came together easily, while other parts of the paper required some finesse to get them to work.

These two artifacts being similar enough to compare, yet having a vast number of differences,

allowed for strong comparisons to be made.

Through the course of writing this essay there were elements of this project that came

easy, while other aspects of the assignment stalled my writing. It was easy to notice the

differences in the rhetorical devices between the video and article. Since the audiences of each

medium are so different it made the devices each author used more clear and distinct. In addition,

after writing a paper that required many more sources and interviews, this paper seemed much

simpler. On the other hand, it was difficult to find two artifacts that were discussing the same
topic yet had differing opinions. When I was picking my topic, I would find an article that I

enjoyed, but could not find a visual artifact to match it or vice versa. It took some time to find an

academic article and visual artifact that discussed the same topic, but also interested me.

Additionally, in hindsight, I would put more of an effort to compare these two artifacts in

a dialogue form. I made a brief attempt to format this paper in dialogue but quickly decided

against it. I thought that it would be too difficult to convey the information effectively in a

dialogue versus normal report format. Philosophical topics are complex and being able to explain

that complexity through a dialogue was daunting. Likewise, I do not consider myself a creative

writer so a paper in dialogue format would be difficult for me to write at a high level even if it

was in a more simplistic topic. Despite this, I think that if I were to rewrite this paper I could find

a way to creatively display these artifacts as a discussion between characters. I generally enjoy

challenging myself and I wish I had taken this opportunity to challenge myself to write in

dialogue form even if the resulting paper and grade were worse.

In the future, I will have learned from this paper to not worry so much about to end result

of the project, but instead what I can learn from the process of creating said project. While I am

proud of the end result of my paper and believe that it is a strong paper, I admit that I could have

learned more from this project if I had attempted to complete the paper in a dialogue. Going

forward I can use this paper as a lesson for challenging myself in future assignments.
Works Cited

Science Can Answer Moral Questions. Dir. Sam Harris. Perf. Sam Harris. Science Can

Answer Moral Questions. Ted Talk, Feb. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2017.

<https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right#t-597129>.

Mesel, Benjamin De. Do Moral Questions Ask For Answers?. Springer Science+Business

Media Dordrecht. philoSOPHIA, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2017.

< http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=8a96cb32-6a8b-4520-9c5e-

ee631f56f2fd%40pdc-v-sessmgr01>.