I thought this reading was extremely interesting and put moral arguments in a way that I never really thought of them before. For example, when the chapter opened up with all the words that are commonly used in a moral argument I felt kind of tricked that throughout my life I was not consciously reading moral arguments. It was really interesting to me reading about the implied moral arguments like having little kids throw up and be in pain is bad, even though that was not the main conclusion of the argument. Now after taking this course it is interesting the way my thinking or perception of these words have changed.

For example, last semester I learned about Rawls  in one of my classes about Law and it was interesting to see how my perspective on his type of thinking has shifted. When I learned about Rawls, we focused more on approaching issues of justice through the lens of the original position or “veil of ignorance” in which people should disassociate from their own identity’s and personal views in order to think of something as just or unjust. I always hated Rawls and felt like his reasoning was so frustrating because nobody could ever completely answer a question objectively. However now after taking Critical Thinking and really pinning down premises and conclusions it makes more sense to me. His idea of “reflective equilibrium” also makes more sense to me because it kind of reminds me of Bob and how he is a rational person but does not have an actual identity. Thinking of arguments this way is actually really helpful and now I feel bad that I hated Rawls so much. I usually use emotions a lot to determine my judgements or reactions, however now it is much easier to separate myself and just look directly at the logic of what someone is trying to say. This will definitely help me craft better arguments and also evaluate them more objectively, and I did not think that was entirely possible.