An Argument for Argument
One essential element of a democracy is that when people honestly disagree on how to deal with the political and social issues they face, they feel free to openly express their disagreement. In order to make a democracy work, people must be both willing and able to argue their views in a market place of ideas and allow citizens to sort the good ideas from the poor ones.
In our contemporary culture, however, the idea of argument has taken on negative connotations. We think of it as an unpleasant activity. We are admonished not to bring up the topics of politics or religion, because these subjects often produce unpleasantness. We believe that arguments are toxic and destructive of relationships. We view arguments in military terms, where one side is vanquished. Arguments are seen as damaging to the self-esteem of the “loser.” Losers of arguments may feel hurt and angry, because they perceive their loss as a personal humiliation.
Assumptions like these are misguided, because they distort what argument should be and how it has been historically used. Correctly employed, an argument is an act of effective thinking. It is the activity of reason giving. A person engaged in argument makes a statement, then offers reasons why that statement should be believed. From the time of Plato, arguments have been used to move the discussion of a problem toward a resolution. Argument, then, is a process for solving problems. When employed this way, arguments do not produce winners or losers. If a workable solution to a problem is found, everyone wins, regardless of which party first offered the solution. As French moralist, Joseph Joubert, wrote, “the aim of an argument should be not victory but progress.”
If we are unwilling to engage in argument, how would the important differences we face every day be resolved? The alternative to argument is to resolve such problems by resorting to the use of political or physical force. For me, argument is a far superior way to answer to difficult questions.
An argument is an inherently democratic activity. In a democracy, citizens are charged not only with electing the people who will serve as their leaders, but also with expressing a choice as to what they want those leaders to do in certain situations. Without effective argument to fully explore alternative plans, citizens cannot make intelligent choices.
What Makes a Dispute an Argument?
An argument does not take place in a vacuum. Although people sometimes argue with themselves, arguments usually have an audience. That audience may be parties present and involved in the interaction or it may be parties not present and not engaged in the interaction. A wife arguing with her husband about whether or not to purchase a new automobile has an audience of one. A senator making a speech before the Senate has an audience of the members present and those constituents who might read a record of the speech. The point here is that if an argument is to be successful, it must make an appeal that members of the target audience will find relevant to their interests and needs.
Nevertheless, even the most open and fully effective argument cannot absolutely guarantee that the solution it reaches will actually solve the problem it seeks to solve. Arguments attempt to find solutions to problems for which an absolutely certain answer is unknowable. Any solution to a complex problem will leave some aspects in doubt. What is the best plan for dealing with the social security short fall? How can we provide adequate medical care for all Americans? What should America do to help mitigate the problems in the Middle East? How shall we deal with undocumented immigrants? There are alternative solutions for all of these questions, but we cannot know before hand, which, if any, of them provides the best solution. If you expect a perfect answer that leaves nothing in doubt, you will never be able to deal with such complex issues. We cannot know the future, so we cannot be absolutely certain of the best course of action. That’s where argument comes in. An open and free wheeling argument that explores and debates all the alternatives can produce not a guaranteed solution but a solution that has the best chance of success.
Arguments take place over important issues. We don’t argue very long, if at all, over trivial matters. We argue about questions which are important in our lives, and for which, in the face of uncertainty, some course of action is necessary.
People who enter into an argument accept the risk that they might be shown to be wrong. If you enter into a discussion saying, “I know I’m right and nothing you can say will change my mind,” you are engaged in persuasion, not argument. People enter into an argument because they want to test their solutions to a problem against the alternatives, to learn which of them might be best.
The Elements of an Argument
British philosopher Steven Toulmin says that at its most basic level, an effective argument will have three elements, (a) a claim which states the arguer’s position, (b) evidence or reasons why the claim should be accepted, and (c) a warrant, which is a clear connection between the evidence and the claim.
The Claim
In order to make an effective argument, Toulmin says, arguers must state the conclusion or point of their argument in clear and unambiguous terms. The claim answers the question, “What does the arguer want to prove?” Some claims are factual claims: “The earth is experiencing a period of global warming.” Some claims are value claims. These claims argue that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, and/or is beautiful or ugly: “Global warming presents a clear danger to the people of the world, because it will radically change our weather patterns.” Other claims may be claims of policy. These claims suggest a course of action: “We must take immediate steps to reduce carbon emissions in order to stop the warming trend.”
The Evidence or Reasons
Claims, according to Toulmin, require justification. In other words, they require evidence to support them. Evidence might be in the form of observational data or the testimony of unbiased and knowledgeable authorities.
A complete discussion of types and quality of evidence is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless arguers are obligated to present evidence in support of the claims they make. In some arguments the evidence itself is controversial and can become an argument. When this occurs the arguer is ethically bound to provide support for the evidence she or he has cited. For example, I might cite the testimony of a person I claim to be an expert in support of a claim I have made. My opponent has every right to challenge the expertise of the person I have cited and I am ethically obligated to respond to that challenge.
The most important thing about evidence or justification is that all of it be presented. In most social and political arguments, proponents of a point of view attempt to present only the evidence that supports their claim, while omitting evidence or reasons that contradict their claim. For every controversial claim, there are some reasons to support it and reasons to reject it. A good argument presents the reasons to support its claim and attempts to explain away the reasons to reject it. However, an ethical argument does not omit the negative evidence in the hope it will not be brought out.
The Warrant
The warrant, Toulmin tells us, is an inference or an assumption on which the arguer’s reasoning or evidence is based. Of course, some assumptions underlie all arguments. The warrant makes a statement about the relationship between the argument’s claim and its evidence. Warrants are not always directly stated. If the arguer believes that the underlying assumptions are shared by listeners, the arguer may not state them directly. However, if the listeners do not share the arguer’s assumptions, they must be stated clearly and directly if the argument is to be accepted.
When an arguer cites research as evidence in support of a claim, the method, objectivity and applicability of that research might be called into question. Whenever such questions are raised, the arguer is obligated to provide a warrant in support of the evidence cited. “You should accept my evidence because…”
Fallacies in Arguments
A complete list of fallacies that are common in arguments would require a book. Indeed, numerous books have been written on this subject. However, we can briefly examine some of the more common fallacies which you will hear in today’s political discourse.
Ad Hominem
Perhaps the most common fallacy we hear in political argument is the one logicians call ad hominem. It means an attack on person or on the motives of the person making an argument. This type of attack does not speak to the claim, evidence or warrant of the argument, but challenges the veracity, objectivity, behavior, or patriotism of the person making the argument. Today there is hardly a political campaign in which personal attacks do not appear. The so-called “swift boat” issue, which attacked Senator Kerry’s patriotism during the 2004 presidential campaign is one example, and the attack on President Bush’s national-guard service is another. Neither of these attacks was relevant to the candidates’ qualifications for the office they sought nor did they speak to how those candidates might respond to current issues. Of course, if the issue of the argument is an individual’s expertise as a source or qualifications to serve in an office, then a challenge to that individual’s training and professional experience is legitimate.
Hasty Generalization
Another common fallacy is a hasty or unwarranted generalization. An arguer presenting examples or data as evidence in support of a claim is ethically obligated to present examples which are representative of the claimed outcome, along with a sufficient quantity of examples. One current political advertisement argues that a certain congressional candidate is unpatriotic because, as congressman, that candidate voted against a constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the American flag. Regardless of one’s view of flag desecration, one example is hardly enough to draw a conclusion about an individual’s entire worldview.
Argumentum ad Consequentiam
A third common fallacy occurs when one party attempts to unreasonably exploit the fears of listeners. Among political commercials, the seminal example of this fallacy was seen in the 1964 presidential campaign, when Democrats sponsored perhaps the most famous political television commercial of all time, the so called “Daisy Girl” advertisement. The ad depicted a child picking the petals from a daisy, which then morphed into a nuclear explosion and mushroom cloud. It ended with the voice of Lyndon Johnson saying: “These are the stakes: to make a world in which all God’s children can live or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other or we must die.” The point of the ad was to exploit voters’ fears of candidate Goldwater’s perceived inclination toward using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. Forty-two years later Republicans are getting their revenge. There is an advertisement running in the current election using almost the same words, exploiting the Democrats’ perceived unwillingness to defend the nation against terrorism.
The Ethics of Argument
Here are some guidelines for participants in an ethical argument:
- Individuals in an argument agree on a give and take process and that everyone will be allowed an uninterrupted opportunity to speak.
- People in an argument agree that there is some evidence which, if established, will resolve the issue.
- All claims counter-claims and challenges focus on the issue at hand and not on the motives or personal behavior of the parties engaged in the argument. (See “Ad Hominem” above)
- Any statement made in an argument is fair game for challenge. If a statement is challenged, the individual making the statement is ethically obligated to respond to the challenge. If the challenge is adequately defended, the person making the challenge is obligated to concede the point. If the challenge cannot be adequately defended, the person originally making the statement is obligated to concede the point.
- In today’s scandal oriented social and political milieu, there are very few arguments in which these guidelines are followed.
There has always been political bickering. Personal attacks and scandals have been a part of our politics since the days of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamiltion. However, since the middle of the 20th century, there has been an explosion of the invective of personal destruction, which now seems to be the standard for political communication. Political campaigners today do not seem satisfied with merely winning a campaign, they seem to want the total devastation of their opponents. Such vitriolic attacks divert our efforts to find real solutions to problems and eat away at the underpinnings of our democratic system. Conversely, if we allow discussion and argument to become the norm, rather than the exception, it may make our democratic system more workable and might allow us to find constructive solutions to problems that for years have seemed intractable.