The Causal Argument answers questions such as "What caused it?" "What effects does it have?" The underlying rhetorical structure of such an argument is X causes (or does not cause) Y.
As our reading in Writing Arguments
demonstrates, the pursuit of underlying causality is quite complex and
detailed. One of the most common problems in causal arguments is oversimplifying
the causality, so we need to think fairly and accurately about the variety
of factors contributing to any given effect. If we focus the essay on pursuing
a single particular cause, we need to demonstrate that we are indeed aware
of the spectrum of causes leading to our effect and provide a brief rationalization
for pursuing one cause out of many.
Typically, the introduction provides some background to the issue you're treating so that your reader has enough information to understand your argument. The introduction also briefly introduces the debate or range of positions people hold on the issue. Finally, you let your reader know what YOUR position is in your causal thesis.
Notice how Vice President Al Gore deals with
questions of causality in "Environmentalism of the Spirit." Pursuing all
the causes of environmental pollution and destruction is wildly beyond
any reasonable scope for a single essay, so Gore very precisely limits
the scope of his essay to an argument about the underlying spiritual causes
of environmental degradation. Note that he clearly demonstrates he has
an arguable topic by fairly summarizing the opposing argument before
he launches into a defense of his own thesis, that The
Judeo-Christian tradition does not promote environmental recklessness.
| To some, this global environmental crisis
is primarily a crisis of values. In this view, the basic cause of the problem
is that we as a civilization base our decisions about how to relate to
the environment on premises that are fundamentally unethical. And since
religion has traditionally been the most powerful source of ethical guidance
for our civilization, the search for villains has led to the doorstep of
the major religious systems.
Here in the West, some have charged -- inaccurately, I believe -- that the Judeo-Christian tradition chartered the relentless march of civilization to dominate nature, beginning with the creation story of Genesis, in which humankind is granted "dominion" over the earth. In its basic form, the charge is that our tradition assigns divine purpose to our exercise of virtually complete power to work our will over nature. It is alleged that by endowing human beings with a completely unique relationship to god and then delegating God's authority over nature to human beings, the tradition sanctions as ethical all choices that put a higher priority on human needs and desires than on the rest of nature. Simply put, according to this view, it is "ethical" to make sure that whenever nature gets in the way of what we want, nature loses. But this is a cartoon version of the Judeo-Christian tradition, one that bears little resemblance to the reality. Critics attack religion for inspiring an arrogant and reckless attitude toward nature, but they have not always read the relevant texts carefully enough. Although it is certainly true that our civilization is built on the premise that we can use nature for our own ends without regard to the impact we have on it, it is not fair to charge any of the major world religions with promoting this dangerous attitude. Indeed, all of them mandate an ethical responsibility to protect and care for the well-being of the natural world. SOURCE: Gore, Al. "Environmentalism of the Spirit." Constructing Nature: Readings from the American Experience. Eds. Richard Jenseth and Edward E. Lotto. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Blair Press of Prentice Hall, 1996. 348-370. |
|
|