The Doubting Game as Opposite to the Believing Game - Essay Example

Conflicting Viewpoints Introduction The believing game can be played in several ways as it is an educational experience for each individual. However, it is difficult to learn as individuals are often clouded by their emotions which obscure the amount of information they can learn from their opposition. In order for one to play the believing game, he or she must separate his own opinions and views on the issue being discussed and listen to the opposing or contrasting opinion (Elbow, 2006). However, this is only the first step as the person must then try to believe these opinions. This can be done by the individual perceiving these views as his own (Coats, 2012). The doubting game is opposite to the believing game and requires an individual to contest a certain idea or subject (Elbow, 2006). The doubting and believing game can be played by one acknowledging the fact that there are two sides to every argument. In the believing game, the students may assess each point uniquely and find the good things about it. These can then be used to help the students believe the point which may otherwise be different from their own. The doubting game is simpler as it is easier to identify error than to believe in something (Elbow, 2008). Hence, in this game individuals may assess a point and look what is accurate and what is in accurate. Hence, concluding that all the information that they assume to be inaccurate is incorrect and create an opinion based on the inaccuracy. An example of an issue that has been widely discussed is euthanasia and whether it should be legalized. Each individual has a right to live which consequently means he or she has a right to die hence euthanasia should be legalized. Believing game People who are against the legalization of euthanasia state that this could lead to a slippery slope (“Euthanasia Pros and Cons”, n.d). This view is valid and interesting as allowing the killing of a human being raises the question on where a line should be drawn. If euthanasia is permitted people will start to question other aspects of morality. This raises an even bigger problem as morality is not factual but subjective. Hence, if allowing a morally objected matter such as the killing of innocent human beings for any purpose other morals in society will come into question. If I possessed this belief I would see the need to change many aspects in society and revise the definition of murder as euthanasia is an act of killing another human being. The slippery slope could be true in many different cases involving hospital ethics and society’s views for murder and value for life. One of the main reasons why people also oppose euthanasia is religion. The religious view is based on the fact that life is a gift from God and no one has the right to take this gift away. This is an interesting perspective as there is concrete evidence on the origins of humans. Hence, if I believed in the creationist theory then I would accept that my mere existence is something gifted to me by a superior being, hence, I would have no possibility to take away my own life or question anything that happens. If I believed this view, I would be able to explain many other things in my life and I would have a greater appreciation for life. Knowing that there is someone who knows much more than me and put me on earth for a reason would make my opinion on euthanasia negative. Another point that was made against the legalization of euthanasia is the influence this would have on palliative care as in the Netherlands where this is legal there are almost no patients in this department (“Euthanasia Pros and Cons”, n.d). This view is helpful as the invasion of euthanasia in other aspects of medicine is already clearly visible. There are other individuals who have the potential to be helped in the future as the medical field is constantly advancing and euthanasia jeopardizes this progress. Doubt game The premises that are in agreement with my initial opinion include the fact that the slippery slope is an argument that is used to question almost all moral issues and the argument in itself holds very little value. The second supporting argument is that if an individual has the right to live, he or she should have the same right to die. The final argument in agreement with my conclusion is that wills can be written to refuse treatment prolonging an individual’s life in palliative care and this is similar to euthanasia as the act will inevitably lead to the individual’s death. The arguments were probed by asking the questions who is likely to be negatively affected by these decisions and how these factors will affect society negatively. Another question that was also used was why euthanasia should remain illegal. There are several biases that can be observed on both sides of the argument. On the pros argument there was biasness associated with the backfire effect (cognitive bias). Another form of bias was ambiguity as the majority of the information was based on assumptions. Finally the third type of bias was that of selective perception. There was also biasness on the cons side that mainly included social desirability bias, belief biasness and outcome bias (Hertel & Mathews, 2011). Conclusion After the assessment I still maintain the same opinion, however, I feel the position I hold is more valid as I was able to assess different viewpoints. There are many different perspectives one can take and I was able to not only appreciate the opposing opinions to my own, but I also had the possibility to see the negative attributes of my views. However after playing both the doubt and believing game I found that my views were still valid and were the most objective on this issue. Morality is a difficult concept to assess and it is essential for one to try and assess the objective aspects of such issues and use them to derive a conclusion. I was able to do this better using the doubt and believing game. References Coats, K. (2012). The Believing Game (review). Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, 66(4), 190-191. Elbow, P. (2006). The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Bringing light into the darkness: A guide to teaching peace, empathy, and understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Elbow, P. (2008). The Believing Game or Methodological Believing. The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning, 14(1), 3. Euthanasia Pros and Cons. (n.d). ProCon.org. Hertel, P. T., & Mathews, A. (2011). Cognitive bias modification past perspectives, current findings, and future applications. Perspectives on Psychological Science,6(6), 521-536. Tesler, P. H. (1999). The believing game, the doubting game, and collaborative law: A reply to Penelope Bryan. Read More