Chivalry Essay, Research Paper
Chilvalry is the most significant concept throughout history. Chivalry, in its
formal code, came to exist in the Middle Ages around the 12th century. It is
not clear as to whether the Romans, the Franks, or the Germans gave rise to
chivalry, but each culture brought the seeds of conduct with them. The
formal code was based on knightly conduct, with special emphasis on the
courtly manners towards women. Chivalry was such an important aspect of
morality that the church became heavily involved. The church used the code
of chivalry to reshape the idea of the social warrior. In doing this, the church
wanted citizens to identify with virtue, military excellence with courtesy, a
sense of justice, piety, and honor.(Ventura, pg. 46) People familiar with
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table know that a chivalrous act
usually involved someone, usually a damsel in distress and a brave knight
who comes to the rescue. For the sake of arguing, we need to establish our
definition of chivalry. ?Our reparative definitions are as follows: Chivalry-
the qualifications of the ideal knight. Dead- extinguished no longer existing.
Our Stipulative definitions are the following: Chivalry-for our purposes,
chivalry are the characteristics of a person who follows and believes in the
principles of the Chivalric Code. Dead-no longer occurring Chivalric Code:
I. Live to serve king and country. II. Live one’s life so that it is worthy of
respect and honor. III. Live for freedom, justice and all that is good. IV.
Choose death before dishonor. V. Never attack an unarmed foe. VI. Avoid
lying to your fellow man VII. Administer justice. VIII. Defend the week and
innocent. IX. Destroy evil in all of its monstrous forms. X. Show Respect to
authority. XI. Exhibit manners. XII. Do not allow anger to blind you, a cool
head will win the day. XIII. Exhibit courage in word and deed. XIV. Never
abandon a friend, ally,
or noble cause. XV. Never betray a confidence or comrade. XVI. Remain
loyal to one’s friends and those who lay their trust in thee. XVII. Fight with
honor. XVIII. Die with honor.?(Berger,pg.28) The code of honor that
chilvarly made people live by left a cultural tradition to be carried out many
hundreds of years.
Today, morality and ethics are rare commodities. One could generalize
these principles down to everyday situations, but even then, one would find
that the majority of people just don’t live by this code. Today, the majority of
people just do not hold these values true to their hearts. And it should be
clarified that just because you hold a door open, or pick up books for a
female you are not chivalrous. Chivalry is code that one must live their life
by, not simply picking and choosing a few to follow. For example, schools
no longer teach morality; but religion is able to reach only a few and families
are often broken. We see the results of this problem nightly on the television,
news, and in dailypapers.
Nobody in the world will do the right thing every single time. We are
going to pick for aspects of the chivalric code and demonstrate how they no
longer exist. Argument #1 Deductive Reasoning For our purposes cheating
will be defined as obtaining an unfair advantage to benefit oneself. It has
been shown through research that cheating is a common occurrence at all
college campuses. Of 68 people that were polled at Cal Poly 80% (or 54
people) admitted that they have cheated at one time or another. Cheating is a
direct violation of the Chivalric Code. P1 Cheating is obtaining an unfair
advantage to benefit oneself. P2 Cheating is a common occurrence at all
college campuses. P3 80% of Cal Poly students admitted to cheating at one
time or another. P4 Cheating is a violation of the Chivalric Code. Therefore,
C Chivalry is dead. A.R.G. Conditions Acceptability: Premise 1 is cogent
because it is a definition and not an arguable statement (common
knowledge). Premise 2 is acceptable because it is not easy to refute and gives
no evidence of not being acceptable. Premise 3 is a different case. It is
acceptable under the proper testimony clause. The premise is a fact from a
poll taken at Cal Poly and there is no reason to doubt the fact that the results
are true. Premise 4 is true by simple logic. Premise 5 is defended by the rest
of the argument and is therefore acceptable. Relevance: Relevance is also
evident in this argument. Premise 1 clearly defines the ambiguous term of
cheating for premise 2. Premise three is a proof of premise 2. It gives a
specific example to the broad statement made in premise 2. Premise 4 is
definitely relevant. Premise five is not relevant to premise 3 or 4 but is
relevant to premise 1 and 2. Grounds: This argument meets the G condition
because all the premises are true and relevant to themselves and support the
conclusion. Counter Argument P1 For this purpose we will define cheating
as directly copying someone’s work. P2 Cheating is not a common
occurrence in college classrooms. P3 Of the 68 people polled at Cal Poly
only 19 of them admitted copying off a neighbor’s work. P4 19 of 68 is less
than 51% that is needed to prove a majority. P5 Some people will always
defy the Chivalric Code but a majority is needed to prove the code is
nonexistent. Therefore, C Chivalry is not dead A.R.G. Conditions
Acceptability: Premise 1 is a stipulative definition and can not be argued.
Premise 2 uses the stipulative definition of premise 1 and makes a general
statement. This premise is accepted provisionally based on the fact that the
other premises aim to prove that statement true. Premise 3 is yet another fact
that can not be argued and is therefore acceptable. Premise 4 states a simple,
logical fact and can not be argued either. Premise 5 is easily refutable and is
not acceptable. Relevancy: Premise one is directly related to premise 2.
Premise 2 is proved true by the facts presented in premise 3. Premise 4 is
related to premise 3 through its usage of the information in 3. Premise 5 is
not relative to any of the other premises and allows this argument to not meet
the Relevancy condition. Grounds: This argument does not pass the G
condition because it does not meet the R condition. Premise 5 needs to be
supported by a sub-argument in order to be acceptable on the G condition.
Argument #2 Conductive Reasoning In today’s society people attempt to
cover up their mistakes, hoping that nobody will notice, this is not an
honorable act. Most people are not courageous or brave and rarely help when
someone is in trouble. Now days, people are quick to sue and often greedy
when it comes to money and financial matters. People are only generous
when others are watching. The more money the better! Loyalty is rarely seen
in any way shape or form. From the smallest social circle to family situations
across the nation, all lack loyalty. We live in a world of aggression and
revenge. If we are wronged we want to get that person or persons back. All
of these above principles, which happen to be in the Chivalric Code, are
often not seen in present day society. P1 In today’s society people attempt to
cover up their mistakes, hoping that no one will notice, this is not an
honorable act. P2 Most people are not courageous or brave; people no longer
help when they see that a person is in trouble. P3 Now more than ever
people are sue happy, intending to get everything that is theirs and more;
they are generous only when they have to be. P4 Loyalty is rarely seen
people cheat one another everyday, parents abandon their children, and
people talk about each other when they are not around. P5 People who are
able to “forgive and forget” are not common. Revenge, lawsuits and
aggression have taken their place. P6 Honor, courage, generosity,
forgiveness, and loyalty are rarely seen. Therefore, C Chivalry is dead. 1 + 2
+ 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 C (Converging Premises into one conclusion) Counter
Argument Honorable people treat others fairly and keep their word. People
are usually courageous and help those in trouble with out thinking of
themselves. People would rather give than receive showing that most
everyone is generous. People hardly ever ask for the return of something they
have loaned. People rarely cheat on each other or leave friends, children or
anyone else they love. These are all part of the Code of Chivalry. P1
Honorable people treat others fairly and keep their word. P2 People are
courageous and help those in trouble with out thinking of themselves. P3
People would rather give than receive showing that most everyone is
generous. P4 People hardly ever ask for the return of something that they
loaned. P5 People rarely cheat on each other or leave friends, children, or
anyone else they love behind. Therefore, C Chivalry is alive. A.R.G.
Conditions Conductive Argument P1 A- known to be a priori true R-
positive relevance P2 A- matter of common knowledge R- positive relevance
P3 A- matter of common knowledge R- positive relevance P4 A-known to a
priori true R- positive relevance P5 A- matter of common knowledge R-
positive relevance P 1-5 G- all grounds for cogent argument Counter
Argument P1 A- Highly refutable, not acceptable R- positive relevance P2
A- premise is refutable on the basis of common knowledge R- positive
relevance P3 A- highly refutable R- positive relevance P4 A- vague or
ambiguous, not acceptable R- positive relevance P5 A- begs the question R-
positive relevance P 1-5 G- all grounds for argument Argument #3 Inductive
Reasoning P1 On an average day in North Carolina, 100 women are victims
of rape or attempted rape and many others are battered, predominantly by
men that they know. P2 The population is bigger in California than in North
Carolina. So probably, P3 On an average day in the California, over 100
women are victims of rape or attempted rape and many others are battered,
predominantly by men that they know. P4 Rape is a form of assault to a
woman, and assaulting a woman shows no respect for a woman. P5
Respecting a woman is a rule under the code of chivalry. Therefore, C
Chivalry is dead. A.R.G. Conditions First, we will test the premises of the
subargument for acceptability. P1 is acceptable based on testimony. P2 is
acceptable based on common knowledge. Next, we will test for relevance.
Both of the premises are positively relevant to the conclusion. Finally, we
test for good grounds. Both premises being acceptable and relevant,
therefore, there are good grounds for the conclusion. Now we will move on
to the whole argument. P4 is acceptable based on common knowledge. P5 is
acceptable a priori based on the code of chivalry. The subargument, P4, and
P5 are all positively relevant to the conclusion. There are also good grounds
provided for the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is cogent. Counter
Argument P1 60% of men polled at Cal Poly open doors for women. So
probably, P3 Around 60% of men in San Luis Obispo open doors for
women. P4 Opening a door for a woman is a sign of respect. P5 Showing
respect for a woman is a rule under the code of chivalry. Therefore, C
Chivalry is not dead. The previous argument also uses inductive reasoning.
We are applying the statistics we found true at Cal Poly to the population of
San Luis Obispo. We feel that this sample is representative because we
polled a total of 68 people at various locations on campus, including the
recreation center, the library, the lighthouse, the campus store, the university
union, and the business building breeze way. We also feel that this sample
can apply to the population of San Luis Obispo because Cal Poly students
account for a large amount of the population of the city. A.R.G. Conditions
Now we must take the argument through A.R.G. First, we deal with the
subargument. P1 is acceptable because of testimony. It is also positively
relevant to the conclusion and as a result of the above paragraph it also
provides good grounds for the conclusion. Now we move on to the whole
argument. P4 is acceptable based on common knowledge. P5 is acceptable a
priori based on the code of chivalry. The subargument, P4, and P5 are all
positively relevant to the conclusion. Based on the fact that all the premises
are acceptable and relevant to the conclusion, there are good grounds. This
argument is also cogent. Argument #4 Analogy “The president of the United
States is a citizen who is entitled to represent the people of the United States
and we look up to him as a role model. Recently, the president lied about his
affair with Monica Lewinsky. If our president lies, then it shows us that it is
okay to lie. Lying goes against the code of chivalry. Therefore, seeing the
president’s actions, chivalry is dead. P1 The president is a citizen who is
entitled to represent the people of the United States. P2 We, as citizens, look
up to the President as a role model. P3 The president lied about his affair
with Monica Lewinsky. (Christian Science Monitor) For our purposes, P4
Lying is knowingly not telling the absolute truth. P5 If our president lies
then it shows us that it is okay to lie. P6 Lying goes against the code of
chivalry. (Refer to the code of chivalry.) Therefore, C Chivalry is dead.
A.R.G. Conditions As far as linking goes, P1 P2 and P3 are linked and P4 is
a subargument. Then P4 P5 and P6 are linked leading to the conclusion. P1
definitely passes the A condition because it is common knowledge that the
president represents the United States. It is positively relevant to P2 because
it ties into the idea that because our president lied he is not chivalrous,
therefore chivalry being dead. It also passes the G condition because it is
linked with the other premises that support the subargument. P2 is also
acceptable because once again it is common knowledge. It is negatively
relevant to P3, but passes on the G because it offers support to the
subargument. P3 is acceptable because it is taken from a newspaper. It is
positively relevant to the subargument, P4 and passes on the G due to the
fact that it offers support to the conclusion. P4 is a subargument, and
because it’s premises pass the A condition is automatically passes the A
condition. It is positively relevant to P5 because it is talking about lying
which ties directly with the conclusion. Believing this premise true and
bringing it together with the other premises, it passes the G condition. P5 is
a little wishy washy, so we will pass it provisionally, hoping that the R and
G condition pass. It is positively relevant to P6 and it passes on the G
condition due to the fact it is talking about the connection between lying, the
president, and the code of chivalry. P6 is acceptable on the basis that it was a
premise defended elsewhere. It is positively relevant to the conclusion and
passes on the grounds when taken collectively with all the other premises.
So our argument, passing all the proper conditions, is cogent. Counter
Argument “The president of the United States is a representative of the
people. His main job is to guide this country into economic prosperity and
solve many of the current problems in the United States today. We as
citizens, have no right to pry into the personal life of the president and
should only be concerned with his governmental duties. Therefore, your
argument (previous example) is unacceptable. (Deductive Reasoning) P1
The president of the United States is a representative of the people. P2 His
main job is to guide this country into economic prosperity and solve the
current problems in the United States today. P3 We have no right to pry into
the personal life of the president. P4 We should only be concerned with the
president’s governmental duties. Therefore, C Your argument is
unacceptable. A.R.G. Conditions P1 and P2 are premises that could stand on
their own. P3 and P4 are definitely connected because they offer the most
support for my conclusion. As far as the A.R.G. conditions, P1 is acceptable
because it is common knowledge. It is positively relevant to P2, supporting
the fact that he guides our country. It also passes on the grounds because it
goes towards supporting the conclusion. P2 is acceptable because again it is
based on common knowledge. It is definitely relevant to P3. But, whether it
is positively relevant depends on your own opinion. And it passes on
grounds because it is offering support for the conclusion. P3 it pretty much
an opinion and depending on your own views would depend on whether or