There are two basic strategies for arguing with someone who
you disagree with.
The first is to presume good faith on the person you
disagree with, presume them to be a mostly honest truth-seeker, and employ
logical reasoning, facts, figures, mathematics, and statistics to convince
them. This strategy requires that you check your emotions and refrain from
morally judging the person with whom you argue.
The second strategy is to claim the moral high-ground as
soon as the argument begins, and get very upset at the person who holds an
unapproved opinion. You presume (or at least *act* as though you presume) bad
faith on the part of the person you disagree with. And you cast them as
culturally backwards, or otherwise stupid or wicked.
I think the second strategy is sometimes called for. I see
it as a commitment strategy. Sometimes you have to get something done and there
is no time for the niceties of an open inquiry. Suppose you are standing up to
the king of the most powerful nation on earth. You could write “A Philosophical
Treatise Defending Novel Moral Claims of the Signatories.” Or you could write,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” and berate the king for his
misbehavior. You commit strongly to a position, and you signal that you are
unwilling to reconsider. It’s perfectly rational to do this in some contexts.
If someone proposes a return to state-sponsored racial segregation or the death
penalty for marijuana use or mandatory licensure for the act of becoming a
parent, there is no reason to take them seriously. If a proposal is
self-evidently morally despicable, it’s sometimes appropriate to simply shout
it down.
The problem arises when you jump the gun too early. You may
commit to the *wrong* proposals, and it might turn out that the people you are
insulting actually have something meaningful to say. If you always use the
emotional commitment strategy, you end up looking silly. Because half the time
you’re probably wrong, which poisons your credibility for the other half of the
time. There are people who are willing to change their minds and who respond to
information and logical arguments; I’ve seen people change their minds very
quickly when they realized they were mistaken about something. On the other
hand, few people respond well to being scolded about their misguided values.
You may manage to shut someone up by making certain ideas unwelcome, but you
are very unlikely to change hearts and minds with this approach. In fact, this
strategy is likely to leave a silent majority seething with indignation, but still lurking in the background. They don’t publicly air their unwelcome ideas anymore,
but they still hold onto them. They may even vote a walking avatar of their bigotry into office.
Personally, I’d like to see quite a bit more of the first
approach. Be a little more willing to consider ideas you don’t like. People who
hold them aren’t all stupid or evil. At least understand the arguments of their
more articulate proponents. Nothing important is going to change unless we all
do this a little more often. Moral progress happens because some of those
“morally despicable” ideas turned out to be right.
(I wrote most of this post over a year ago. With Donald Trump now a stone's-throw from the Oval Office, I couldn't resist sharing.)
No comments:
Post a Comment