Future Argument
Yesterday I was discussing a topic--doesn't matter which--with a friend, and he made a curious claim. He said the public didn't yet realize how morally significant his argument is, but they will. He analogized his cause with fighting against slavery or for women's suffrage--not that long ago no one cared about these issues, but they were unstoppable moral imperatives, and when the time was right, the public got the message.
He may very well be correct, but this is closer to astrology than logic. Perhaps he's right that things will change in his favor, but there are no guarantees. Until then, does he expect me to be convinced by historical analogies? Further, even if public sentiment does change, that wouldn't even mean his cause is just, and I thought that's what the discussion was about.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:32 AM
7 Comments:
For a few years now there has been a trend towards trying to sway an opponent in a moral argument by using the slavery analogy. I'm pretty sure it started in the right-to-life camp, where the parallels are easy to draw:
Both groups are widely denied the full set of human rights due to a public perception which portrays them not-quite-human.
It has the same structure as the mad inventor who claims vindication from riducule by pointing out that "they laughed at Edison, too." It's not the fact that they laughed at Edison that grants him a respected place among inventors, just as it's not the previous, albeit, misguided perception of slaves as less than human that merits the full spectrum of human rights.
It's a little depressing to think
that this argument form is spreading.
Just because this type argument gets over-stated and misused is not however a reason to miss out on the kernel of truth. The point of this argument is that just because an idea is not accepted presently or is ridiculed does not necessarily mean it is without value or won't be accepted someday, because hey, things and perceptions change. In that limited aspect, it is a perfectly reasonable argumentative defense though hard to see how it could ever be dispositive.
I don't even think it's even as good as New England Guy claims. It's about as meaningful as saying I'd have won that football game if I scored more points. Sure, maybe your arguments will win out, but anyone, whether their argument is good or just nutty, can make this claim. It means nothing. If you have a good argument, make it here and now.
You're right its not an argument- its at best a rebuttal to the (weak) argument that "its always been this way."
I suppose it might make a difference if it were a wholly novel argument that nobody had even considered, as opposed to one people had thought about and rejected.
I'm sure many arguments about slavery being wrong were considered and rejected before they finally won out.
I think the essence of the argument is to ask you to consider your assumptions and whether, underneath your feeling that things have always been thus and under your possible self-interest in the question you have a niggling feeling that the thing you are justifying is in fact wrong. But the value of this argument depends strongly on your willingness to consider alternatives and whether in fact the issue in question gives you that feeling.
Anonymous concentrates on how the listener should feel about this argument. That doesn't interest me so much as how the one who makes it should feel. My point, once again, is if you have an argument, make it. If you think I disagree for whatever reason, say that, too, if you like. But don't just say your argument will win out in the long run because it's right or more just and expect me to be impressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home