ADAM GOODSTEIN

MS. KUHN
BALA 103W
10/19/14
HW #3

Bono (also known as Paul David Hewson) wrote an editorial published on

November 30, 2011 in the New York Times titled A Decade of Progress on AIDS. The
purposes of the editorial were to commend individuals in the U.S., as well as the country
as a whole, for leading the fight against AIDS over the previous decade and to emphasize
the importance of continuing to support the cause despite budget cuts resulting from the
recession.
Bono argues in the editorial that the reason the United States became so involved
with treating AIDS was because of a common understanding between various groups,
which normally maintained very different values. The eleventh edition of Asking the
Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley
defines values as unstated ideas that people see as worthwhile. They provide standards
of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior. According to Asking
the Right Questions, people are more inclined to listen to others with similar value
priorities. Accordingly, Bono implicitly and explicitly uses values in his editorial to
convince readers to support the treatment of Africans diagnosed with AIDS.
One of the values Bono found to have united people toward the cause is the value
of opportunity. The original lack of treatment in Africa, according to Bono, offended
the very idea of America: that everyone is created equal and that your destiny is your own
to make. Bono is implying that one of the most fundamental values of America is
opportunity. People who believe in the importance of this American value would be
more likely to offer support. This idea can especially encourage monetary support from
wealthy individuals because these individuals may partially credit Americas emphasis on
the opportunity to make ones own destiny for their monetary success. This would be a
good way for wealthy individuals to give back, so to speak. In fact, Jeffrey Sachs,
George Soros and Bill Gates all supported the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria, likely, in part, because of this American value.
Another value Bono lists as contributing to the unification of often-opposed
parties is the value of national security. Bono points out how unusual it is for certain
people who would normally not be expected to participate in a cause like fighting AIDS
in Africa to participate. For example, military men calling AIDS in Africa a national
security issue was an extremely unpredictable occurrence. Having the U.S. Military,
which is normally expected to be concerned exclusively with U.S. security, pushing for
the treatment of Africans with AIDS is a tremendous political pressure on the U.S.
Government that could translate into action.
Another value that may have caused people to become more involved is the value
of likeability. The fact that America has become generally well liked by a continent
because of its contribution Africans with AIDS, let alone one that is close to half
Muslim and that, by 2025, will surpass China in population, is arguably a very important
factor. This fact could cause those who believe that it is important for America to be liked
by other countries, for foreign affairs purposes, to offer support for treatment of AIDS in
Africa as well.

Bono probably listed these values in his editorial for two purposes. Firstly, to
applaud the United States for contributing so much to the cause, and secondly, to appeal
to various crowds who believe in the aforementioned values and encourage them to join
in on the cause in the future. Consistent with Asking the Right Questions argument that
people are more likely to agree with someone who holds of similar values, Bono attempts
to convince a broader audience of the importance of treating Africans with AIDS by
using many different values in the editorial.
There are, however, arguments that could be made against the treatment of AIDS
in Africa, stemming from equally legitimate, but opposing values to those of Bono. In
Asking the Right Questions, when one value opposes another, it is called a value
conflict and when an individual chooses one value over another it is called value
priority. This does not mean that any one value is inherently good or bad or one is more
important than another; it simply means that one value is being preferred over another in
a given situation. Assuming Bonos main value is charity, one can make an argument in
favor of economic stability, in the value conflict of charity versus economic stability. For
example, one may be inclined to agree with Bono that during the better part of the years
between the late 1990s and 2007 it was extremely important to provide monetary support
for the treatment AIDS in Africa. With the strong U.S. economy, charity is more
important than being overly cautious about economic stability at home. However, the
same person that believes in the importance of charity may prioritize the value of
economic stability during one of the greatest recessions in American history, which
began in 2008. During that time, one can argue, the U.S. should focus on its own
monetary issues before it can offer support to other countries.
Bono may have responded to this argument by claiming that even during the
recession, the values of charity or justice should take precedence over ensuring economic
stability because of how little it would actually cost America relative to its other budgets
and how much it costs the people of Africa (not just monetarily) who are dying from
AIDS. In fact, Bono makes sure to emphasize that the cost of funding the treatment that
could save lives is less than 1 percent of the federal budget. The editorial may have
even been published during the recession specifically to respond to the argument that the
U.S. should only focus on economic stability during that time. Moreover, treating AIDS
while it is still in one area would be much cheaper than waiting until it spreads across the
world and becomes extremely costly. A similar argument can be made with the recent
Ebola outbreak.
I believe that, like the argument in Asking the Right Questions, it is a smart
strategy to provoke people to act by appealing to their values. This is because people
often discredit an argument solely based on the fact that they disagree with a value in an
argument and people agree with an argument because they agree with a value in the
argument. For example, if someone collecting money for a shul (a Jewish place of
worship) asked me to give money to a shul because god commands it, I may be
inclined to refuse even though I know the money will go to a good organization because I
dont necessarily believe in commandments. However, if someone told me to give
money to a shul because shuls are involved in charity and many projects assisting

communities, I would be more likely to donate money. Both arguments are for the same
cause, but the former would turn me away because of a religious value I dont necessarily
agree with. The latter argument, on the other hand, focuses on the value of charity, a
value I believe in, and therefore appeals to my sense of values. This would even apply if
I already knew that the shul regularly donated to charity before either argument was
made. Therefore, the smarter strategy when asking me to donate money to a shul would
be by mentioning the value of charity rather than the value of religion.
Although the strategy of appealing to values seems deceptive because the
argument is being directed toward a specific crowd for the sole purpose of swaying them
to one side, I believe its not deceptive, but rather it encourages a deeper level of
thinking. Its not deceptive because, although people often have different values, these
values can lead to the same logical conclusions. In other words, in the previous example
of giving money to a shul, assuming I already knew the shul was charitable to begin with,
the end result should be the same regardless of the argument made. Logically, I should
donate money in both situations. Yet, once I hear the value of religion, I break away
from the logical reasoning and instead do not donate because I disagree with a particular
value in the argument. In other words, I didnt engage in deeper level of thinking. If
someone had argued with a value I agreed with, I would be enabled to consider the
arguments merits rather than reject it because of a minor technicality.
Value conflicts are especially pertinent to the epidemic of Ebola in Africa. I
believe that its important to provide aid to Africa to fight Ebola as it unfolds because that
is justice; no group has any less of a right to live than another group that is fortunate
enough to live in a place almost completely unaffected by the catastrophe. However, I
dont believe that that is the value that should be championed. Rather, it makes more
sense to champion the value of national security (in the U.S.) in order to fight Ebola in
Africa. The reason for this is because unfortunately many U.S. citizens did not pay any
significant attention to Ebola while the disease was confined to Africa. Once the first
U.S. citizen was diagnosed, however, many more people became concerned. In order to
appeal to those people, one should argue for the value of national security by sending aid
to Africa in order to stop the disease in its tracks. By appealing to the value that many
U.S. citizens believe in (national security), we can better achieve justice in Africa. In this
situation, it may be slightly deceptive to make this argument, but the value of justice
should take priority over deception to save lives. I believe that this is the smartest
strategy and is a great example of appealing to peoples values in order to provoke action.