Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?

Critical Thinking
Go back to your very first journal entry review your definition of critical thinking. After studying critical thinking for the past eight weeks, would you change your definition in any way? If yes, how and why? If no if it was perfect what parts of the text were best reflected in your definition?
Heart of the Matter
Recall in your first journal entry that you discussed the authors’ statement that the concepts in Chapters 12, 13 and 14 were “the heart of the matter.” After having studied those chapters, answer again, with renewed understanding, the question posed there: Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?
Ethical Decision-Making
The lecture claims that an argument is no good unless it has a “strong and reasoned ethical base.” Do you agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Looking Forward
Do you believe that you now know everything you need to know about critical thinking or is learning to think critically a life-long task? Explain your answer.

At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending even to the point of risking your life in their defense.

When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked and lost their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances or is war never an appropriate response?
This is not a group exercise post your thoughts, considering the scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure to give your reasons for your answer.

Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.

Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions to their specific applications?

The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your premises?

Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.