|The Worst Argument In The World
||[Aug. 19th, 2012|01:44 am]
David Stove once ran a contest to find the Worst Argument In The World, but he awarded the prize to his own entry, and one that shored up his politics to boot. It hardly seems like an objective process.
If he can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word."
Well, it sounds dumb when you put it like that. Who even does that, anyway?
I propose that an outright majority of the classic arguments in American politics, and no small number of arguments in religion, philosophy, et cetera, are in fact unmodified examples of the Worst Argument In The World. Before we get to those, let's look at a concrete example.
Suppose someone wants to build a statue honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his nonviolent resistance to racism. An opponent of the statue objects: "But Martin Luther King was a criminal! His policy of ignoring segregation restrictions clearly broke the Alabama laws of the time, and his protests violated a legally-obtained injunction against civil rights demonstrations. He was arrested and jailed, and although no doubt the judge had strong emotions the conviction was totally in keeping with the letter of the law."
A criminal is defined as a person who breaks the law; Martin Luther King was objectively and incontrovertibly a criminal. But here the objector is making The Worst Argument In The World. She's saying that because King was a criminal, we should treat him as a perfectly typical criminal. A typical criminal is someone like a bank robber; obviously we wouldn't build a statue to the average bank robber. But King was not a typical criminal, and the unusual circumstances in his case exactly explain why he deserves a statue after all.
When the supporter says "King courageously violated the unjust segregation laws at great risk to himself," and the opponent objects "But King was a criminal!" it sounds like the opponent is adding information. But she's not: that King was a criminal is already implied by the supporter's sentence. The opponent is actually urging us to subtract information; to ignore every facet of King's actions except that they broke the law. The proper response to being asked to subtract information is "No, why should I? I'd make a better decision if I didn't throw out most of what I know about Martin Luther King for no reason." When the opponent says "King was a criminal!" you respond "Yes, so what?"
Notice how this is one hundred percent contrary to instinct; the urge is to respond "No he wasn't! You take that back!". This is why the Worst Argument In The World is so successful. As soon as you do that you've fallen into their trap. Your argument is no longer about whether you should build a statue, it's about whether King was a criminal. And since King was a criminal, you've instantly lost.
But now let me justify my assertion that all the political arguments you have ever heard are special cases of this.
"Taxation is theft!" Some libertarians are extraordinarily intelligent people whose understanding of economics and political science gives them an intuitive feel for how government policies often have unintended negative consequences. Other libertarians just repeat this phrase again and again, and ask you if you support stealing. The typical example of theft is someone mugging you in a dark alley and taking your pocketbook. Taxation technically qualifies as theft if you define the latter as "taking someone's money through implied threat of force", but it also differs from dark-alley-mugging in several important ways, like that it's levied by a democratically elected government, that it's supposed to be spent on useful programs, and that it's collected in an orderly and predictable fashion. These differences seem to be important enough that most people support taxation even though they don't support dark-alley-muggings. Libertarians can reasonably argue that these differences are not important enough to justify taxation, but they need to actually make this argument; they can't just say "Taxation is theft!" and try to sweep the differences under the rug.
"Abortion is murder!" Emotionally charged word? Check. Used on a situation where it technically applies, but which is quite different from the typical case? Check. The typical case of murder is Charles Manson breaking into a house and shooting someone. Abortion differs in that the victim is an embryo or fetus with less biological complexity and intelligence than the average rabbit. I'm not trying to make a pro-choice argument here; there are several perspectives from which one could argue that despite the fetus' lack of development killing it is still morally wrong. But saying "Abortion is murder!" doesn't illuminate any of those perspectives. It just tries to get us to subtract the information that this particular murder wouldn't cut short anyone's dreams and aspirations, or leave behind a grieving spouse and children, or do any of the other things that make murders bad when Charles Manson does them.
"Capital punishment is murder!" Some nitpicking nitwits have tried to argue against this conclusion by saying that the definition of murder is "unlawful killing", and since the death penalty is "lawful killing" it doesn't count. This is exactly as clever as re-defining "criminal" to mean "a person who breaks the law and is not Martin Luther King". It puts a band-aid on the problem but doesn't address the fact that this is the worst argument in the world and is trying to point out a double standard when we already know exactly where the double standard comes from. Imagine someone saying "You people love to put guilty men in jail, but if you think an innocent man is in jail suddenly you get all freaked out. What a double standard!" "Capital punishment is murder!" is the exact same argument, except with "execution" in place of "jail time" and put into Worst Argument In The World form to gain emotional resonance (compare also the argument "Putting someone in jail is kidnapping". Technically, yes.)
"Euthanasia is murder!" I'm not even going to talk about this one because talking about euthanasia makes me too upset and I would have to trigger-warning myself, but you can see where this is going.
"Affirmative action is a form of racial discrimination!" Well, obviously. That's kind of the point. And the typical example of racial discrimination - the Ku Klux Klan burning your house down or something - is pretty bad. But a lot of the reasons KKK-house-burning is bad - living in fear, locking downtrodden groups into a cycle of poverty, totally locking qualified people out of any job - don't apply to the wildly atypical case of affirmative action. It may be that it is still harmful, but its opponents will have to attack it on its own merits or lack thereof, not point out superficial similarities to the Jim Crow Laws or Nuremberg.
"That's racist!" This is now the third most common short phrase in the English language, after "Good morning" and "Thank you", but it too is sometimes a form of the Worst Argument In The World. The typical example of racism is, of course, Hitler killing ten million people. When somebody, let's say, publishes a study that says minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and somebody else responds by saying "That's racist!", they are taking something that no one could possibly object to on its own merits - a social science study, maybe a relatively well-conducted one - and telling us that our opinion of the study must be closely correlated with our opinion of Hitler killing ten million people. Yes, the study is racist, if by racist you mean "It says bad things about minority groups," which seems like a reasonable definition. But it's the okay kind of racism, just like taxation is an okay kind of theft and abortion is an okay kind of murder and Martin Luther King was an okay kind of criminal. The fact that you can't even say the phrase "an okay kind of racism" without being torn to pieces so viciously it makes Bacchus' death look merciful is exactly what gives The Worst Argument In The World its power.
"Obamacare is socialist!" I don't think anyone knows quite how to define socialism (although maybe nancylebov can help with that one), but Obamacare seems as likely to qualify as anything else. The problem is that everyone can give an typical example of socialism, and that example is Stalin sending people to the gulag (it doesn't matter that there was nothing remotely socialist about that), or maybe some bureaucrat deciding that there will be exactly 860,000 shoes produced this year and dooming everyone to wait on shoe lines barefoot in the freezing snow. There are a lot of reasons not to want the United States to look exactly like Communist Cuba, but Obamacare stands or falls on whether you want poor people to be able to afford health care, not on whether you want to have to go around calling everyone "Comrade" all the time.
"Genetic engineering to cure diseases is eugenics!". Okay, you've got me there: since eugenics means "trying to improve the gene pool" that's clearly right. But what's wrong with eugenics? "What's wrong with eugenics? Hitler did eugenics! Those unethical scientists in the 1950s who sterilized black women without their consent did eugenics!" "And what was wrong with what Hitler and those unethical scientists did?" "What do you mean, what was wrong with them? Hitler killed millions of people! Those unethical scientists ruined people's lives." "And does using genetic engineering to cure diseases kill millions of people, or ruin anyone's life?" "Well...not really." "Then what's wrong with it?" "It's eugenics!."
Some people will say I am being too harsh on this argument. They will say it can be used for good. Sticking with Martin Luther King-related examples in honor of me being in Alabama, suppose King told a group of racists "You should treat black people better; after all, we're all human." This seems on the face of it like an example of the Worst Argument In The World. King is using an emotionally charged word ("humans") and asking the racists to ignore information about these particular humans (that they are black) and treat them exactly as typical humans (to the racists, presumably white people). But isn't this a good argument?
It is a good argument, but it has one big difference from the Worst Argument examples above. King is using the argument to ask the racists for an explanation for their double standard; the examples above are using the argument to shout down an explanation for the double standard. King's argument could be framed as "Given that our normal instinct is to treat humans with respect, why should we act differently in the special case where the humans happen to be black?" If we rephrase the original "criminal" problem that way, we get "Given that our normal instinct is to dislike criminals, why should we act differently in the special case where the criminal broke an unjust law as part of heroic passive resistance against racism?" This is not exactly a difficult question; in fact, phrased like this the answer is perfectly obvious. The "We are all humans" argument only works because we genuinely don't know why the racists are making their distinction.
If the racists had a good explanation for their double standard, like "It turns out all black people have hydrogen bombs in their stomach that detonate when the black person is treated respectfully; therefore in order to maintain the continued existence of the very Earth itself we must be disrespectful to black people," then King would have to engage with this argument. Now that he's heard an explanation for their double standard, just repeating "But we're all humans here" doesn't cut it. The racists' explanation doesn't even have to be reasonable. As soon as they give an explanation, King's next move is to debate whether the explanation is valid, not move back to the "We're all humans" gambit.
The political and philosophical examples above all show cases where there is an obvious explanation for the double standard. The explanation may or may not be valid, but merely pointing out the double standard - which is all the Worst Argument In The World can do - isn't enough.
Any time you find yourself objecting to the definition of a word - "But affirmative action isn't discrimination! It only counts as discrimination when it's against an underprivileged group!" you are probably walking into the Worst Argument In The World. Stop it. Just say "It doesn't matter how we define discrimination at this particular moment, let's discuss the costs and benefits of affirmative action like mature adults".
Ending on a high note: "Deontology is the philosophy of enshrining the Worst Argument In The World as the only acceptable form of moral reasoning." Discuss.
I can't speak for torekp, but after reading many of the original socialists, it's hard for me to break loose of a definition that involves 1) general anti-capitalism (especially its requirement of personal production for all exchange, the market pricing of various goods, and the destructiveness of the competitive process) and 2) advocacy of state or community control of most capital (and many goods). Nowadays we call that "communism," but it's plain as day this is what most of utopian socialists were preaching.
If we're crying out "That's socialism!" and we're using that definition, I think there are very good reasons to reflexively oppose that system of government and any strong obvious paths to that system of government, without a lot of special evidence. But Obamacare clearly doesn't fit the bill. Neither does welfare, especially not the earned income credit tax. These have certain elements of socialist thought in them (specifically the opposition to wages determining worth), but they're quite the opposite direction in some important ways. Obamacare specifically incorporates a lot of private business + government elements that socialists decried.
The problem as I see it is that the definition of the word has changed. Now it seems to mean "any significant government spending (that a Republican wouldn't approve)." But the THAT'S SOCIALISM gambit is pulling a bait-and-switch to get you to apply a justified negative emotional reaction against one thing to another, completely different thing.
I have no idea how the typical example of socialism became Sweden, though. I wonder when that idea came around? Maybe around the time communist parties became, uh, less popular? I'd really like to know.
Most of Europe makes a distinction between "socialism" and "communism"; where "socialism" is things like government-provided health care and "communism" is things like a command economy. I think people use "social democratic" to disambiguate themselves from the original socialists.
Anyway, most of Europe doesn't go around saying "OMG SOCIALISM IS EVIL"; even when they don't like the socialists and want someone else to win. Probably because we aren't confusing Mr Holland with Stalin...
"I can't speak for torekp" - actually, you pretty much just did. My definition emphasizes your point 2, but point 1 certainly deserves mention.