I had just finished watching a movie called "Doubt" for my film class. After seeing it, I walked out into the night feeling confused. It was a well-done film, and I couldn't decide if I should side with the nun who thought every little thing should be punished, or the priest who liked to indulge others but might be a wrongdoer himself.
The nun had a valid viewpoint—the allegations made against the priest were serious, and definitely needed attention.
However, the priest gave an explanation that took care of the problem.
. . . then again, was his explanation adequate?
On the other hand, the nun had little evidence.
The priest could be lying.
The nun could be too picky.
As I got to the car, I wondered what made the dilemma such a hard one to take sides on. I thought back to the principles of rhetoric I learned in writing class, and remembered what made a good argument. In a good argument, you shouldn't discredit the other side—you should acknowledge their viewpoint and give a clear, concise, adequate response.
While waiting at a red light, I thought back through the film. Both sides were presented well, and both gave clear responses to each other, but both left me wondering if either had presented adequate evidence to support their viewpoint. I also left wondering if, despite all the fireworks, either party was really secure in their own viewpoint. That's the first step to creating an argument.
I, as a third party, saw both sides, but only part of each. I couldn't come to a final judgment of them any more than I can thoroughly judge anyone in real life. I think that's what the film was trying to say.
They have their doubts, and so do I.
The light turned green.
No comments:
Post a Comment