I've been thinking a bit lately about good and bad conversation, and good and bad arguments. I've had quite a bit of experience with both, and some things I've learned from academic argumentation turn out to be reflections of what are simply good ways of talking to people with whom you disagree. So I offer these entries for what they're worth as suggestions for good habits so that your conversations are not a waste of time.
Ground Rule #1: The Principle of Charity
The principle of charity is a way of approaching another person's argument or claim. It is particularly useful when confronted with a viewpoint you have never heard before, or that you are inclined to dismiss right off the bat. Philosophers use this principle when responding to each other's arguments. In this essay I'll explain what the principle is and give some reasons why it is useful, and then suggest what its use in conversation might look like.
Part of the reason I like this principle so much is that is a philosophical application of the classical Christian virtue of charity, which is just a very old word for "love." So you can think of the principle as showing "charity" to those with whom you converse. Sometimes people you talk to don't communicate clearly, but this principle suggests that you should help make up for that rather punishing them for it immediately.
According to the venerable Wikipedia, the principle of charity is "an approach to understanding a speaker's statements by interpreting the speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, rendering the best, strongest possible interpretation of an argument." In other words, give the other person the benefit of the doubt. When interpreting and evaluating their argument, assume the other person is not an idiot.
"But," you will surely protest, "what if my opponent is an idiot? Why shouldn't I treat him like one?" Well, part of the answer is a bit self-interested: you want to avoid wasting time defeating straw men.
A straw man is an argument or belief that is so extreme or obviously flawed that no one actually holds it. Or you might say it is an unfair misrepresentation of someone else's views. But it is similar enough to what your conversation partner does believe to appear on first glance to actually be those beliefs. Thus, defeating a straw man argument can often look like defeating the person's real argument. In reality, defeating a straw man just wastes time.
Some examples (taken from here):
Bill:"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
In this case, the speaker is dismantling a straw man, since Senator Jones did not say that the country should be defenseless. He simply objected to one particular military program.
How could Bill have responded according to the principle of charity? Well he would have to start out assuming that Senator Jones is not suggesting something so extreme as "leaving us defenseless." Bill must ask, why would Senator Jones want that if he were a rational person? He would have to find the actual reasons, such as what the actual effect of the submarine program would be, what the cost would be, how else the money could be better spent etc. If he did all this, Bill could provide a reasonable critique rather than defeating a straw man.
Here's one where two people both engage in straw men arguments: Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want to keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
In this case, Bill is addressing the straw man of cleaning every day, which Jill didn't suggest, and Jill then attacked the straw man of Bill wanting to keep all his junk forever, something he never expressed either and probably doesn't actually want.
If Bill had applied the rule of charity, he would have to assume that Jill isn't suggesting that they clean everyday, but simply this day, or perhaps whenever the closets get a bit messy. He could have responded that they are not messy enough to warrant cleaning. Jill, on the other hand, could have stopped at her first sentence, assuming that Bill is rational, and probably doesn't actually want to keep all his junk forever.
In these examples it is clear that adhering to the rule of charity would have assisted these folks in their arguments, forcing them to be stronger and more convincing. For example, if Bill chose to apply the principle of charity to Senator Jones' rejection of the submarine program, his argument would have been strong enough to refute even an intelligent person who wanted to drop the program, rather than just some imaginary person who wants the country to be defenseless. The fact that the resulting argument is stronger when you apply the principle of charity than it would be otherwise is one of the reasons philosophers use it.
But the thing I want to highlight here is that both of these cases are not just bad arguments. They are cases of bad conversation. The problem isn't just that the arguments produced are weak. I would suggest that the reason such arguments come about in the first place is because we don't pay attention to each other well enough. We respond too quickly, rejecting a person's opinion or argument before we have fully understood it. We are arguing back when we should be asking clarifying questions. It is probable, for example, that Bill #1 simply doesn't understand the senator's argument about the submarine program because he hasn't really listened yet.
The trick here is that we do this when we think we have understood. So how do we know when we have really understood versus when we merely think we have? Well, that's where the principle of charity comes in. If your interpretation of your conversation partner's argument is one that requires him to be an idiot, you stop and ask clarifying questions. Try very hard to assume your partner is rational and intelligent. If it is not clear how he could be rational and intelligent and think what he does, ask clarifying questions. Raise your concerns. But do so expecting that when you understand, you will no longer be forced to believe he's an idiot.
A good measure of when you have successfully done this is when you can state your friend's argument in your own words in a way that she would agree with. If you can do that, then you have probably understood her actual argument and can offer a counterargument if you still disagree.
In my experience, by this point you will probably be able to see precisely where you disagree. Conversation can happen fairly naturally after we've listened long enough. The trick is withholding judgment at the very beginning. The principle of charity will help you get past this and actually have a good, fruitful conversation, even if you and your friend still end up disagreeing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment