Socrates Now!
By M.J. Frangadakis
We all argue, and this is a good thing. We discuss our personal and social ideals in a lively fashion, bantering about freedom of speech, the right to privacy, social justice, and yes, the American Way of Life. When we argue, we stand up for what we think is true, and justify our conclusions. Argument fosters clear thinking. Through argument we hope to discover: What’s going on here? What’s the truth of the situation? Is this man guilty of the crime as charged, or not? What’s the evidence? Should we raise taxes? Change our school system? Allow more immigration? End the war? Restrain oil company profits? Let’s get the facts out on the table, and sort through them in a give and take.
When we sit down to discuss these things, we each often start by thinking we have the right answers on these diverse, complicated issues, and eliciting agreement from our fellows. But once we earnestly communicate our feelings and thoughts, we realize how differently most of us view the same situation. On one planet, different personalities adopt innumerable views. And since these diverse views very often contradict one another, they obviously can’t all be right.
Beyond the inherent difficulties that are necessarily a part of any honest discussion, the real problems rear up when we argue unfairly. Both psychology and philosophy books give detailed accounts of how we consciously (or unconsciously) manipulate one another through our speech, how mightily I want to convince you that I am right and you (sadly enough) are wrong. This might be perfectly acceptable if my original intent in taking issue with you is not clarity, but in fact manipulation, or, in extreme instances, intimidation.
For example, a politician might use the common, logical fallacy referred to as argumentum ad hominem, which means an “attack against the person”. Rather than debate the merits of their opponent’s ideas, the maker of an ad hominem argument challenges his motives for making the argument. It is suggested that the person on the other side of the aisle has too many personal shortcomings to be trusted—shortcomings that, even if true, may yet be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Another logical fallacy that most of us are familiar with is the “slippery-slope.” This fallacy has been used by our government in the war on drugs and by the N.R.A. in the war against firearm regulations (to name two obvious instances). Take a puff, and you’ve got an E-ticket to hell; regulate firearms, and prepare for U.S. storm troopers to crash through your front door. Despite, or because of its blatantly manipulative motive, this type of fallacious thinking is very effective in deterring opposing viewpoints. One more step in that direction--the direction I oppose--and your slide into damnation is assured.
Recently we are asking ourselves, assuming that the government must give substantial weight to thwarting possible terrorist attacks, how much of our right to be free of search and seizure should we surrender? When has the trip over the edge gone too far? At what point have we lost our personal liberties irretrievably? With wire taps? Spying on the Internet and our personal e-mail? With profiling suspects and detaining them at undisclosed locations with no bail? With the loss of attorney-client privilege? When do we really know that our ride down the precipice has begun?
Yet another commonplace fallacy is referred to as argumentum ad baculum, or the “Argument of the Club”. This operates much in the same way as it sounds: Threaten someone, and they’ll usually come around to your way of thinking. Although this might seem more like the intimidation the mafia or a Saddam Hussein type character might use, it can be quite subtle…and very effective. For example, in a political race I could argue that if my opponent wins, then jobs—your jobs!—will be lost. This is definitely a veiled threat, and simply infecting you with that strain of fear might be enough to put aside any truly reasonable arguments I might offer in order to prove my claim. The current political debates over illegal immigrants are heavily front-loaded with this fallacy. Why use clear thinking, when I can muddy the situation through turbulent emotions?
Somewhat related to this tactic is another favorite ploy consistently promulgated by our politicians: The “Black-or-White, Either/Or” fallacy. This method of persuasion is almost embarrassingly transparent, yet still extremely effective in bringing people to your point of view. It’s almost as if we want to be taken in by the ruse.
Begin with an inherently complex problem, such as trade tariffs (over which many a war has been fought), and reduce it to an either/or situation. You could say something like: “Either higher tariffs are levied on imported steel, or our valued steel workers will all be out of a job in the near future, and our economic base will end in ruin.” It’s an all-or-nothing game, with no alternative solutions possible.
Of course, it could very well be that some changes in political policy will have to take place so that our workers will not lose their jobs in the near future, but social and political issues such as these are rarely so simple as to be soluble with black or white explanations. Gray is usually the predominant color in these situations. Once again, this is a veiled appeal to emotional reactions under the pretense of logical certitude.
When we look at social and legislative issues in general, we find that determining the absolutely right answer is virtually impossible. Proponents on both sides of any argument usually resort to the same kinds of fallacies: Start with a strong undercurrent of emotion, such as fear or animosity or greed. Then over-simplify the facts by throwing in a fistful of hasty generalizations. Once this is accomplished, claim with the utmost sincerity that the issue is essentially a black-and-white affair, and anyone with common sense knows which side is correct. This is called “Poisoning the Well.” Emphasize your meaning by looking directly into the camera and saying emphatically that things can only go one of two ways: Our Way or the Wrong Way. As added insurance, bulwark your position by insisting that the other side cannot prove you wrong, therefore, by implication you are obviously right. This is called “arguing from ignorance,” and its persuasive power cannot be overstated.
So now you are forearmed against all manner of fallacious arguments. But be careful not to discard the infant with the effluvia — not everyone who relies upon fallacious reasoning is wrong. Some may reason poorly, but still have a good answer. Take for example the issue of whether to have extramarital sexual relations. Even if adultery does not result in eternal damnation, there are many good reasons to avoid it – health, psychology, and economics all argue in favor of keeping the marital bond inviolate. Going to hell may just be shorthand, after all, for going to court.
Most philosophers believe that reasonable arguments, arguments that have mutual understanding and clarity as their shared objectives, are indeed possible. However, it takes skill to have a meaningful argument. When we engage in an argument, no matter how trivial or significant the issue, we must keep an eye on our own obsessions. Not just because we are each driven to convince others that our view is correct, but even more-so because we must convince ourselves. Since we are rarely willing to question the conclusions we’ve already established as the foundations of our thinking, behaving “reasonably” often just means rationalizing our prejudices. When we argue from that perspective, what I wish were true, and what is true, become one and the same to us.
Assuming that this is the case, I would like to offer my own version of truth: Our society should cultivate faith in reason. The only alternative is to accept a devalued vision of human potential. Stanley Cavell defined philosophy as “a willingness to think undistractedly about things that ordinary human beings cannot help thinking about.” Presumably, he means that everyone thinks about the big issues – birth, death, freedom, slavery – but philosophers stick with the inquiry, and remain undistracted by the fact that these things are hard to think about. Learning to think “undistractedly” means applying the rules of reasonable argument to the process of thinking, and following thoughts through to their logical conclusion. To think undistractedly, one must avoid shortcuts like rejecting an idea because of prejudice toward the speaker, overstating the negative consequences of a decision, or being “politically correct” to avoid social rejection. By thinking undistractedly, an individual can achieve clarity. By arguing honestly with our fellows, clarity can arise between us. By having faith in reason, that clarity can be communicated to society at large. So let’s argue.