Assignment 12: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part I Your Essa

15assignment 12 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part Iiyour Essay Titl

Write a three to four-page academic paper that synthesizes your understanding of a contentious issue by reflecting on your own position and critically examining the premises supporting and opposing that position. Your paper should include an introduction that clearly states your stance, a body that identifies and explains three premises from Procon.org that support your viewpoint, and an analysis of your responses to the opposing premises based on the “believing game.” Additionally, you must analyze at least two types of biases that influenced your evaluation of the premises and discuss how your encultural background and group identification may have affected your biases. Conclude with a reflection on whether or not your thinking about the issue has changed after engaging in the “believing game,” regardless of whether your opinion has shifted. Ensure proper adherence to Strayer Writing Standards (SWS) for formatting, citations, and references, and maintain clear, organized writing with an engaging introduction and a thoughtful conclusion.

Paper For Above instruction

Engaging with contentious social issues often requires not only understanding diverse perspectives but also critically reflecting on one's own biases and influences. In this paper, I explore the complex debate surrounding capital punishment, articulating my stance based on research and personal reflection. I will identify three premises from Procon.org that support my position, analyze my responses to opposing arguments through the lens of the “believing game,” and reflect on how my background and biases influence my evaluation. Finally, I will consider whether this exercise has affected my thinking, even if my position remains unchanged.

My position on capital punishment is that, despite its purported benefits, it is morally and ethically unjustifiable. I believe that taking a human life, regardless of the severity of the crime, violates fundamental human rights and the dignity inherent in every individual. This conviction stems from both my personal values and the ethical considerations I have reflected upon through research and introspection.

From Procon.org, three premises support my position. The first premise is that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime (Procon.org, 1). Many studies show that states with the death penalty do not necessarily have lower murder rates than those without it, indicating that its deterrent effect is negligible. This premise reasons against the validity of the primary argument used by proponents that capital punishment prevents future crimes. I selected this premise because it directly questions the core justification for the death penalty, which is central to my stance.

The second premise is the risk of executing innocent people. Since the judicial process is fallible, wrongful convictions can lead to irreversible punishment. Once a person is executed, it is impossible to rectify an error, highlighting a profound moral concern (Derrida et al., 2014). I find this premise compelling because it underscores the potential for tragic injustice rooted in systemic imperfections—an ethical dilemma that strongly opposes the moral justification of capital punishment.

The third supporting premise concerns the violation of human dignity and moral values. Many religious and ethical systems advocate respect for human life, and the death penalty can be seen as contradicting divine or moral law (Parks, 2012). The Catholic Church, for instance, has increasingly opposed capital punishment, emphasizing the sanctity of human life (Vatican, 2020). I selected this premise because it resonates with my broader ethical perspective that justice should uphold human dignity rather than diminish it.

Applying the “believing game,” I formulated questions to explore the counterarguments against my position. For example, some argue that the death penalty provides justice for victims and their families, offering closure and a sense of moral balance. During my reflection, I considered whether this emotional appeal justifies the actual moral implications. I also examined arguments stating that capital punishment can be a deterrent, especially in cases of severe crimes like treason or terrorism, which threaten societal stability (Barber, 2014). In evaluating these premises, I asked myself whether these reasons convincingly outweigh the ethical costs and risks involved.

Regarding biases, confirmation bias was evident as I naturally aligned with arguments against the death penalty, influenced by my human rights values. I also experienced emotional bias, as the idea of innocent lives lost deeply unsettles me. Recognizing these biases was crucial in thoroughly analyzing the premises. For example, I became aware of how my aversion to injustice might amplify my sensitivity to wrongful convictions, thereby reinforcing my opposition to capital punishment.

Furthermore, my background and enculturation significantly shape my biases. Growing up in a community that prioritizes human rights and social justice, I am influenced by principles promoting compassion and dignity. My education and religious beliefs also reinforce the sanctity of life, making me more resistant to arguments favoring severe punishments like the death penalty. Conversely, individuals from communities emphasizing law-and-order perspectives or concerns about justice for victims might hold different biases that favor capital punishment.

Engaging in the “believing game” did influence my thinking; I gained a deeper understanding of the moral and emotional complexities involved in the debate. While my overarching position remains that the death penalty is unethical, I now appreciate the sincerity of arguments emphasizing justice for victims and societal security. This exercise fostered a more nuanced perspective, recognizing that opponents’ reasons stem from legitimate moral concerns, even if I ultimately disagree with their conclusions.

In conclusion, critically examining both supporting and opposing premises through the “believing game” has enriched my understanding of the topic. It illuminated the biases that shape my judgments and highlighted the importance of ethical reflection, cultural influences, and emotional intelligence in forming opinions. Although my stance against capital punishment remains firm, I now approach the debate with increased empathy and awareness of the moral intricacies involved, exemplifying the value of reflective skepticism in critical thinking.

References

• Barber, N. (2014). The death penalty. Franklin Watts.
• Derrida, J., Bennington, G., CreÌpon, M., Dutoit, T., & Kamuf, P. (2014). The death penalty. University of Chicago Press.
• ProCon.org. (2017, December 1). Right to Health Care. Retrieved from https://www.procon.org
• Parks, P. J. (2012). The death penalty. ReferencePoint Press.
• Vatican. (2020). The Catholic Church and the Death Penalty. Retrieved from https://www.vatican.va
• Heinemann, John. (2006). The Believing Game and how to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful. In Nurturing the Peacemakers in Our Students. Heinemann.