Povert

We’ve got a new Wrestle that Shark up. It’s Episode 5. We talk about Quantum Consciousness. Weird stuff.

Can I propose a small but affective ban on a rhetorical technique? I want to get rid of this argument:

If the roles were reversed, and Party X did this instead of Party Y, then Party Y would raise objections, but since the roles are not reversed, Party Y has no problem with its own behavior.

I hate those kinds of arguments. They are at best circumstantial ad hominem, perhaps abusive ad hominem. These sorts of arguments may even be question-begging.

People of all political affiliations pull this one. The most recent I heard was someone arguing that if Joseph Wilson were more sympathetic to George W. Bush’s politics, Democrats would have been screaming up and down that he had no business commenting on the president’s assertion that Niger tried to or did sell uranium-enriched yellowcake to Iraq.

There’s a lot to be said about the whole situation, but I’m confining this to this post’s thesis. I’ll not concern myself with the substance of the argument — just the technique.

To put it in even more simple terms, how many times have you heard someone say, “If the Democrats were doing this, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder” or “If Republicans did this, Democrats would suddenly be defenders of state rights”. Crap like that.

So why do I object to this line of argument? First of all, these sorts of claims are neither confirmable nor falsifiable because they are not talking about situations which actually exist. Or, as Sartre argued, you cannot argue that you are or were capable of doing something unless you actually did it. Likewise, it makes no sense to argue about how an opposing individual or group would behave in a hypothetical situation, because that situation never happened. Not only that, but a situation is always more complex than either sides of the argument want to acknowledge. What would result from a reversal of roles is not obvious or reliably determinable.

Second, the argument is incredibly ironic. Consider this: usually, when Party X is making this argument, they are asserting that Party Y is partisan and uninterested in doing the right thing. They are asserting that Party Y is only taking the attitude they are because of their current position. This is problematic because as long as this type of argument is considered acceptable, it can be applied by Party Y to Party X as well. They’d both be fallacious, but they’d both be equally fallacious.

And it’d still all be a bunch of nonsense.

In fact, I often wonder about people who make these sorts of assertions. Kind of like how a cheating spouse is likely to be suspicious of his/her partner. That is, people who do certain wrong things often suspect others of doing the same. So I have to wonder whether people who readily make arguments like this are exactly what they’re accusing others of being.

Now don’t take that last paragraph too much to heart. I can’t really back that up with much. It’s inductive at best. But that is kind of the way I see things, so I’m uncomfortable when one group accuses another of cynicism.

But more than these reasons why it’s a bad form of argument, I think it’s rude, hypocritical and unconvincing. Remember how mad you get when someone pulls this on you? They’re unfairly mapping all these motives onto you. But how many times have you used this argument on people, convinced that you were right?

And as I said, it’s unconvincing. Have you ever been swayed to take another position by one of these arguments? Have you ever said: “You’re right! I am an unprincipled, cynical partisan hack!” Only people who already agree with the person making the argument will agree with the assertion.

It’s a bullshit argument. If you agree with me, be sure to call people on it. Even people you agree with.

If you disagree, let me know why.

I scanned through Conversational Terrorism, and I didn’t see it there. I may recommend it.

I’m currently in the middle of a debate with some family over the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s been interesting.

Part of my problem is that I tend towards moderate liberalism (I didn’t realize I was moderate until somewhat recently). This is not especially helpful in arguments. The problem is that I readily (sometimes actively) point out or admit to my own mistakes. I’m not going to stop doing that, but this can be perceived as a lack of solid grounding. Anyway, I’m not interested in “winning” arguments.

There are a couple points of contention. One is to what extent the courts can “interpret” the Constitution, and whether they have exceeded their authority in particular cases or in general. Another is the fact that the judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives. The last is kind of a side discussion, but nevertheless an interesting one: to what extent any sort of ethical system should be adhered to, and whether ethical systems can fail.

I’m not going to name individuals, and I’m going to do my best not to misrepresent their views insofar as I understand them.

Interpretation

It is my belief that any law is subject to, and demands, interpretation with a measure of restraint. I think that that is inevitable and necessary. Take, for example, the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment:

…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yes, we are discussing Kelo v. New London.

There are two problems, as I see it. Nowhere is “public use” nor “just compensation” defined in the Constitution or its amendments. We tend to think of “public use” as involving infrastructure, but there is no federal law (so far as I know) that states that. The court ruled that under some circumstances economic development is a form of public use (some will argue that I’m wrong about “some circumstances”).

My understanding is that the condemned property will be used for a park (Fort Trumbull State Park), but that seems to be left out of most criticism of the decision. Critics concentrate on the justification of economic development.

So, what do you all think? Does economic development or the creation of a state park constitute public use? To what extent is this actually a park, since my understanding is that parcels of the land will serve commercial purposes?

I should also point out that while I tend to think it was a poor decision, I do think it was solidly based on precedent. The Supreme Court is not bound by precedent, but adherence to it is preferred. See the opinion for the precedents.

Appointed Judges

Despite well-reasoned (in my opinion) arguments for the lifetime appointment of judges, conservatives seem to take pains to emphasize that these judges are not democratically elected. I’m not quite sure what the intent of this emphasis is. It seems to be more of a critique of the judicial branch than of their decisions.

Reasons for lifetime appointments are spelled out by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. I don’t quite understand whether there is a controversy here, or if there is, why. I’ve (surprisingly) yet to hear anyone cite the “good behavior” requirement for lifelong tenure, though I think that that would be a bad argument. As far as I can tell, “good behavior” concerns impeachable offenses, not judicial philosophy or acting on that philosophy.

My big fear is that people will start to treat judges the way we (unfortunately) treat presidents—that is, we seek to impeach them for political reasons—thus defeating the rationale for lifelong appointments.

So again, what do you all think? Why do conservatives constantly emphasize that the judges are appointed? I’m trying not to be cynical.

Ethical Systems

Ok, this one is much more open-ended. However, it arose out of discussion of judicial philosophy. I pointed out that strict interpretation of laws can bring about tyranny and the reinforcement of arguably unconstitutional laws. The question is whether flexible interpretation is better, worse or equivalent (and if so, to what degree).

It evolved because I pointed out that one way of criticizing ethical systems is to point out how they can lead to what we feel in our gut to be unethical consequences.

Someone brought up the so-called “Golden Rule” and asked how it failed. I responded briefly by pointing out how Kant stated that his Categorical Imperative (which is very similar) is not itself sufficient for a moral code. I would also argue that neither the Categorical Imperative nor the Golden Rule can give answers to a large number of ethical dilemmas. I can’t think of any situations where these rules would give a wrong answer, but plenty where they give no answer.

---

In these discussions, several editorials were referenced, though I have not referenced any yet (I’m a bit anal about referencing only court cases, law, and uninterested or politically impartial political theorists). In the interest of fair representation of opposing arguments, here are links to some of them:

• Better off dead by Jonah Goldberg
• Foreign law is not law by Thomas Sowell
• Confiscating property by Walter E. Williams
• Damaging ‘Deference’ by George Will

I think some of these are better than others, though I am ultimately not persuaded. Part of the problem is the mischaracterization, as I see it, of opposing arguments.

That’s the battle I’m really fighting, I think. My political temperament has developed into a severe skepticism of ad hominem and straw man arguments. I am not persuaded by cynical speculations on motive either. I have little patience for these things. They are a waste of time and are intellectually dishonest. That said, I’ve been guilty of these mistakes in the past. I try to avoid them now.

Anyway, for those of you who made it this far (here’s your certificate of completion), thoughts are welcome.

Hah. There is hope.

But being a philosophy geek has some serious downsides. In the article they talk about how geeks tend to rake in the dough. Philosophy doesn’t exactly pay out the nose. Plus, a lot of people are confused or annoyed by philosophy. I can’t tell you the number of times a girl’s eyes gloss over when I start talking about epistemology. Some are downright hostile to it. One ex-girlfriend would actually turn up the car radio when I started talking about that stuff.

Imagine the self-doubt of a drama student, without the “HEY! LOOK AT ME!” attitude. Mixed with an inability to stop worrying about whether there’s a distinction between the brain and mind or whether utilitarianism can encourage authoritarianism. And don’t get me started about religion.

And with me, choices of conversation include that and video editing. Take your pick.