Critical Analysis Keyes Vs. Dershowitz

...

all people are equal but the Bible puts down women. He also brings up how some of the biggest Christians have executed mass killings in the name of God. He says that one does not need religion in order to uphold morality or even have it to begin with.

Dershowitz appeals to logos by giving a statistic on how many nonreligious people there are in America, twenty-seven million nonbelievers. No evidence suggests any of these people are less moral than religious people. He is correct and this helps his logos. The idea that morality and religion are not correlated supports his argument and strengthens it as well. Dershowitz also speaks about how if you are willing to be open to what you don’t know and new intelligence, this alone can help explain disasters in the world. This shows tremendous logos because it is very true, considering the new discoveries we’ve had in science, medical and technology. These discoveries and new powerful knowledge can help explain complex things.

Dershowitz speaks about how in the Bible God tells Abraham to kill his son and Abraham is prepared to do it, he also adds that in the past there have been many people like Abraham. Pathos shows here because the thought of someone killing their own son for God is disturbing and sounds evil in a way. Dershowitz states that there are millions of good people that don’t do the right things because they’re hoping it will get them into heaven. People do the right thing because its morally the right thing to do. Everyone can relate to this in some type of way because we all have done things that came from the heart. This helps his pathos because it pulls the audiences heart strings and makes them feel justice. He uses humor in his argument to lighten up the darkness of it.

Ethos shows in Dershowitz argument when he tells everyone that the Bible is to be respected. “It is one of many sources of morality”. Dershowitz is acknowledging the Bible and giving it credibility. This helps his ethos because it shows that he is well educated on the Bible, although he doesn’t believe in it. Unlike someone who hasn’t read the Bible and educated themselves on it and doesn’t believe. By giving the Bible credit, he is also crediting himself. He also agrees with Keyes’ foreshadowing danger in the twenty first century. This shows they both agree about the bigger picture, just have different theories. Dershowitz doesn’t give any personal attacks, this makes Keyes ethos weaken and Dershowitz gain strength.

Dershowitz effectively uses logos, pathos, and ethos in his argument. He is very consistent with the idea of his point and is very easy to follow. He is realistic and uses logos to support most of his arguments. The mood he establishes in his speeches is freedom. He urges people to be who they are and follow their hearts. He made people laugh and lightened the room up. When he begins he states how he felt like he was in a different line of work because he was carrying around a Bible is funny and intrigues your curiosity. The vocabulary used is quite easy to understand. Dershowitz’s assumptions behind the argument is to help us understand morality is something that comes from you, not religion.

In conclusion, both speakers explained their side well. However I feel that Dershowitz’s argument made more sense than Keyes’. Dershowitz kept it professional and his thoughts were very well organized. Keyes’ started out with a strong ethos but weakened himself when attacking Dershowitz personally. Dershowitz strived to show us that religion is not connected with morality and it is not a need to achieve moral wisdom, where on the other hand Keyes argued that religion plays an important role in maintaining morality and responsibility. These arguments are very different in theory and in writing style, but both are very logical and well written.

...