Philosophy

In the essay Zero Tolerance by Gary Bauslaugh, the author argued that the concept of Zero Tolerance has diverged greatly from its beginnings in regards to law enforcement, and school discipline. Bauslaugh presents this argument in terms of Mad Cow Disease He claims that when problems arose with Mad Cow Disease, any cow that presented a threat was eliminated, even if there was no evidence that the cow was diseased.

Bauslaugh argues that much as with Mad Cow Disease, zero tolerance that is not moderated by the lawn, and balanced by the facts, creates an environment in which discrimination and runs rampant. This secondary argument is also applied to Mad Cow disease as Bauslaugh presents the case of a farming family that had their entire herd of dairy water buffalo confiscated by the Canadian government upon it being revealed that a single cow in Denmark (where the water buffalo had been imported from) had died of Mad Cow Disease. The animals belonging to this family were executed and the family was given no recompense for their losses.

Zero Tolerance is argued by Bauslaugh to be a negative thing. Zero Tolerance creates intolerance, most specifically when it is applied to cases that it did not originally apply to such as dairy farming rather than criminal justice. Bauslaughs final argument states that the intent of zero tolerance regulations is not, in fact, to make people feel safer, or to ensure that the laws are enforced, but, to present a positive image for politicians to their public.

Bauslaugh presents a logical, well thought out argument. He uses terms that everyone can understand, and backs up his claims with clearly presented evidence, using a case that many of his readers would have read about. Bauslaugh depicts zero tolerance not only in terms of cause e.g. why zero tolerance policies are put in place (Mad Cow Disease) but effect e.g. what happens when zero  tolerance policies are unjust (having your water buffalo herd confiscated and killed, resulting in a loss of income). This casts Bauslaughs argument in a positive light. Not only does he back up his claims with fact, but, he shows the consequences of zero tolerance policies on the people who come into contact with these policies.

Overall, Bauslaugh presents a good argument. His opinions are supported and he uses evidence that is congruent with what he is arguing about. His argument may seem slightly slanted because of his own beliefs on zero tolerance policies but his evidence is sound, and his arguments are logical. They progress from Zero Tolerance policies have negative effects on society under all circumstances, including those they were originally intended for to zero tolerance policies have a negative effect on farming and agriculture when applied to Mad Cow Disease. Bauslaugh related his arguments to this in order to present an example that everyone could understand.

It can be claimed that Bauslaughs arguments were valid. Not simply because the evidence he presented supported his claims, but, because there is other evidence outside of Bauslaughs argument that supports his claims that zero tolerance regulations are unfair, discriminatory and only help the politicians that put them in place. This makes Bauslaughs arguments even more believable than had there only been that single case in which zero tolerance policies had been applied in an unfair and unjust manner.

Bauslaugh presents strong evidence in this essay. Zero tolerance is wrong because it is unjust. This is supported when he states that case of farmers who have had their dairy herds confiscated because of mad cow disease. He then presents several examples from a specific case in which zero tolerance policies were wrongly applied. This only serves to support his conclusion that zero tolerance policies only serve to support the interests of politicians rather than protecting innocent people as they were designed to do.

The main weakness in Bauslaughs argument is that he leaves his conclusion open. How does zero tolerance benefit politicians rather than helping people, and why do zero tolerance policies fail to do what they were designed to do  These were two questions that could have been answered in the summation of his argument, or supported in the summation of his argument that he failed to answer.

Bauslaugh does meet the three conditions of argument according to Goviers concept of ARG. Arguments are presented in clear easy language so that they are easy to find an analyze. There is evidence that supports that argument that is both applicable and credible and he clearly supports each sub-argument with evidence. The evidence stands up to evaluation as being factual and truthful. Therefore it can be claimed that Bauslaugh presents a powerful argument.

It can be concluded that Bauslaughs argument against zero tolerance policies met the three characteristics of a standardized argument. He presented his case clearly and succinctly and his evidence was presented in a fashion that made the argument both understandable to a lay person, and credible. It can be further stated that Bauslaugh sets his arguments up in the standard method with his main argument presented in the first paragraph and his sub-arguments presented in the preceding paragraphs. The only weakness in an otherwise strong argument was the failure to answer several key questions in the context of his argument. But, this can be somewhat excused by the fact that this information was presented in the context of a short essay.