In a previous post, I criticized a form of argument which is common in public discourse about abortion:
By being selectively vague about which values are relevant to particular issues, it’s easy to attribute inconsistency to almost any set of values that we dislike. Consider this argument: “There’s nothing ‘pro-life’ about the party that supports the death penalty but opposes gun control and universal health care.” Alternatively, “Democrats claim to care about ‘choice,’ but they don’t think I should have any say in where my kids go to school, whether to get the vaccine, or what the government does with my money.”...Neither set of views is actually internally contradictory or self-defeating. ‘Life’ and ‘choice’ are rhetorical inventions; nobody is actually for or against them in general.
My friend Kiran Lloyd pointed out that the arguments I'm criticizing are more reasonable than I’ve given them credit for (though I don’t think that the following is a perfect reconstruction of his view). When people say things like, "There's nothing 'pro-life' about letting people die of treatable illnesses," they probably don't mean that these views are literally incompatible with each other, as if opposition to abortion implies support for universal health care. Rather, they're disputing Republicans' claim to be the party of 'life' as well as the implication that Democrats are 'anti-life.' In political disputes, it’s normal for people to make arguments that are not exactly valid, but which nevertheless highlight a feature of the debate that the speaker considers to be important. This is not irrational or inconsistent; it is competent political discourse.
Imagine that Republicans claimed to be 'pro-equality' because they favor a policy that would tax all Americans ‘equally’–that is, at exactly the same rate. Obviously Democrats would not let this stand, but would immediately attempt to block this rhetorical move; they would argue that a flat tax is actually much less ‘equal’ than a progressive tax, and they would highlight other important issues on which Republicans are less egalitarian than Democrats.
Consider also the role of ‘freedom’ in arguments about gun control. At first blush, it seems obvious that the ‘pro-freedom’ position is to oppose gun control–the government ought to protect the freedom of citizens to distribute and own firearms. Still, it would clearly be a mistake for proponents of gun control to concede that their side is ‘anti-freedom.’ They can instead make the case that more restrictive gun laws permit different and better forms of freedom, such as freedom from the fear of violence. In an argument about which of these sides supports ‘freedom,’ it’s likely that many of the arguments would not be valid as expressed (at least if we filled in their implications enough to make them substantive), but the argument is not vacuous, either. Arguments about ‘freedom’ often serve as shorthand for more sophisticated arguments that the speakers hold in reserve.
I do think that my criticisms apply to some arguments in this area. I stand by these lines:
If I could show that my opponents’ views are inconsistent, then I wouldn’t have to bother making more substantive arguments–they would already be proven wrong...Before I object to beliefs in this way, I should ask myself, “Do I really think these views are inconsistent, or do I just think that these people are wrong about multiple things?”
It's very satisfying to feel that you've caught your opponents in a contradiction, so people are motivatedly sloppy in the service of framing their political opponents as inconsistent or hypocritical. I concede that these particular arguments about ‘life’ and ‘choice’ are more intelligent than I gave them credit for, but I still think that it's good to be reflexively suspicious of arguments that sound like "gotchas."
No comments:
Post a Comment