An argument, once presented, should stand by itself, regardless of its presenter. To say that the profession of a writer affects the credibility of their argument is foolish. If a janitor presents the same argument, it needs to be refuted the same way. Demeaning a writer for their choice of profession would be, at best, an ad hominem fallacy. Clearly, however; a presented argument could still be flawed. In this vein, it could be speculated that Davis’s argument would be different if he was an engineer. This is the only way the “credibility” of the essay may come into question. Overall, Davis’s logic is sound. As one would expect from a philosopher, he considers every facet of his propositions and draws meaningful conclusions from his …show more content…
Even these first premises are flawed. In what occupation or profession have all members been in agreement or cooperation? Take lawyers, for instance. In every court case, lawyers intentionally work towards diametrically opposite goals, because their respective clients are most important, not an agreed upon code of ethics. Would it be unreasonable to assume that engineers could work towards opposite goals? Must one, upon becoming an engineer, waive their individual desires for those of the established “profession”? Although Davis claims that a code of ethics protects a profession as a whole, giving it an unshakeable reputation, this does not seem to be a requirement in reality. Professionals often act differently from one another and portray different ethics as a result. This does not dissuade the populace from using professional services, it simply allows them to choose which professional best fits their needs. A maverick of a professional could be a godsend to the right