Respond to the following

1. (When Frankfurt writes that bullshit “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false”, he is really referring to the bullshitter and not the bullshit itself. When someone exclaims something that isn’t truth but is also not a direct lie, as the bullshitter won’t gain anything from this or know the actual difference between the two, then they are a direct representation of that quote. A way to find good examples of bullshit in everyday life is by looking at our politicians.

When President Donald J Trump was running for office and President Barack Obama was still in office, President Trump made a childish claim towards President Obama, stating that he wasn’t born in the United States and therefore couldn’t even be the president. Despite this claim obviously being bullshit, it still made President Obama put out his birth certificate which is a private medical record, to which he said it was forged, because why would he wait that long to show his birth certificate if he was really from Hawaii. In this case, President Trump gained nothing from the lie but created an outlet for like minded individuals to voice their opinions and in turn gave him access to a different demographic than the ones that liberals and democrats were supported by.

Frankfurt goes on to say that “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are” because when someone bullshits, they do not care whether or not what they are saying is truthful or a lie, they may not even know the difference between the two, only that they benefit from whatever they are saying. I agree with him because the bullshitter, whomever it is, bullshits just to bullshit and that is worse than someone who lies to lie because when someone lies you can at least discern the truth whereas someone who bullshits gives no indication towards the truth or falsities.)

2. (The article I chose to analyze was “Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?”, a debate between Charles Fried (who is in favor of the Electoral College) and Akhil Reed Amar (who is in favor of the popular vote.

This article is trying to establish whether or not the Electoral College should be used to elect the President of the United States. This idea has been floating around after the previous two elections, especially after the divide in 2016 where Donald Trump won the electoral college (therefore making him the president) and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It is an interesting point and two knowledgeable authors provide their input to establish what they feel is the right answer.

Initially, Charles Fried begins by arguing that all members of the Electoral College are due to direct democracy that we have in place for our country, abiding by the feature that Americans have chosen, which leads to his point being in favor of the Electoral College. I want to specifically focus on the counterargument provided by Akhil Reed Amar, which is that he believes there should not be an Electoral College, as the president should be chosen based on the popular vote. He makes his argument, which seems to follow an inductive argument as follows:

Premise 1: No state uses an Electoral College to elect governors

Premise 2: Direct election (one person=one vote) is used to elect state governors

Premise 3: Governors are to the states as the president is to the country

Conclusion: The country should use direct election as it does with governors to elect the president and abolish the Electoral College

I feel Amar is making a valid point, as each of the premises are true statements which then lead to a probable, yet valid conclusion based on these premises. This is also what makes the argument inductive. Although each of the premises are true, it provides a probable conclusion, not a definitive one, which rules out a deductive argument. Finally, I feel Amar’s argument is a sound, yet effective argument. As mentioned before, the election process with the Electoral College has been under eyes recently due to the elections. I feel if more decisions like the election of 2016 occur, we as a country may see this actually happen.)