Leadership Foundations in Research

After studying ethics for the past nine weeks, my biggest takeaways are fairly simple: 1) Avoid slipper-slope arguments; 2) Embrace opposing opinions — when they’re thought through; and 3) Answers are less important than questions. I picked avoiding slipper-slope arguments as my first real takeaway because of just how popular they are in society. People lean on slipper-slopes constantly, it seems, even though they don’t have a lot of weight behind them. As an argument, they’re faulty, because they serve mostly to deflect. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, slippery slopes allude to possible future outcomes that are impossible to predict, using them as the reason why a particular course of action is wrong in the first place. Even worse, though, they rely on fear, not logic, to make their points. In short: Slippery-slope arguments sound good, but they’re usually weak and lazy, and I’ll be trying to avoid them from here out. When it comes to opposing viewpoints, I believe...

Citizens should have a right to bear arms — but with restrictions. When it comes to gun control, I subscribe to the theory of moderate abolition (MA) (LaFollette, p. 179), the belief that, although gun ownership should be allowed, that right comes with an asterisk. The rules surrounding guns must be stricter. Essentially, I subscribe to the belief that rights come with inherent limitations, and guns are no different. “My right to free religious expression gives me wide discretion in how I exercise my religion. … (but) it does not permit me to sacrifice humans” (LaFollette, p. 180). When one person’s rights begin infringing on other people’s rights, the system must be rethought, even restructured. Currently a constitutional right, gun ownership in America is such a heated debate partly, I believe, because of how deep-seated the issue is in the concept of the “American spirit.” America is a nation that values autonomy, and its right to protect that autonomy, which serves as arg...