Hope everyone had a good weekend! As always, Monday’s post is by Stephen Hall. Thanks Stephen!
In recent political discussion and commentary a number of people have stated their opposition to Roy Moore, a candidate for US Senate from Alabama, but for different and varried reasons.
EducatedHillbilly, @RobProvince, opposes his candidacy because of his stage theatric performances pulling out his handgun and waving it around, a behavior Rob condemns as a disgrace which no true gun rights supporter would ever do, and considers such behavior detrimental.
TheFOO, @Politibunny, opposes Mr. Moore because she fully believes and ascribes to the allegations and accusations of him assaulting and attempting to molest girls as young as fourteen years old, forty years ago back when he was in his early thirties, despite his denials.
Yet others, many on the left oppose Mr. Moore simply because he is the Republican candidate, has advocated for Ten Commandment monuments and gun rights while opposing abortions, and many of them would oppose him merely for any single one of those issues.
On the other side, many support Mr. Moore because his opponent, Doug Jones supports abortion, supports gun control, and pretty much supports the entire leftist agenda of the Democrat party.
Some will support Mr. Moore because they view the allegations of sexual misconduct as a coordinated and fraudulent attack against his character. The fact that Gloria Allred championed on such accuser who admitted to falsifying evidence certainly lends credence to their claims.
I’m sure a few will even support Mr. Moore simply because certain last minute advertisements by Mr. Jones pretty much just called the voters of Alabama a bunch or racist bigots.
However, this post has nothing to do with the election down in Alabama, that is for their voters to decide, thankfully not me. This post is about how people can arrive at the same conclusion, particularly a political or social position statement, through entirely unrelated lines of reasoning starting from different premises and different value systems.
In short, reasonable minds may differ.
And that is what this post is really about, whether or not those minds are, in fact, reasonable, or do they merely differ just to differ. A contrarian is not any more of a benefit to anyone than a sycophant, their opinion not being based in reason at all.
Validity is the measure of any argument or line of reasoning in terms of is logical and mathematical consistency; in other words whether the conclusion derived logically follows from the premises and axioms presumed; or whether the verdict follows from the evidence.
There was a time, some decades ago, when I took a certain delight in offending, riling, and angering feminists and other leftists by the odd quirk of agreeing with them, but basing my agreement upon different reasons than the ones they promoted. I discovered that nothing will anger a leftist quite like agreeing with them for the wrong reasons.
For instance, when the left wanted to argue for allowing women into military combat positions, I would point out that if our objective were just to be fair, not only should women be in combat, they ought to be required to register for the draft, and further that perhaps women should serve exclusively on the front lines until as many women have been killed as men, after all better they get shot than me.
One would think that I had advocated shooting them personally by the reactions I would get. You see, the logic they employed did not lead merely to the result that they wanted, but continued further lead to a conclusion that they detested. But the logic itself was valid, if the goal of the policy was to achieve fairness and parity, then why not?
Women often like to assert that it is polite for a man to open the door for a lady and let her walk through first; I would often agree, stating that I certainly did not trust them behind me. Somehow agreeing that a man should open a door for a lady did not appear quite as gentlemanly.
Feminists often like to assert that they just want to be treated the same as a man. I find that when you ask them to lift and carry boxes, or carry furniture, or take out the garbage, or change a flat tire, that they don’t appear to enjoy being treated the same as a man as much as they had supposed.
And just try arguing with a woman the way you would with any other guy, interrupting her when you have a point to make, explaining to her why she is wrong, you know, treating her like an equal. Feminism means she picks up the tab every other time.
More recently, I have enjoyed putting forth the proposition that if women have a right to abort their physical parental responsibilities, then naturally a man ought to have the same time to decide whether or not he wants to assume financial responsibility for that child, a male equivalent to abortion, a financial abortion if you will.
Suddenly these women who advocate for an absolute right of women’s physical autonomy balk at the very notion of an absolute right to a man’s fiscal autonomy.
(One would surmise that I have not significantly matured over the intervening four decades from whence I first derived such arguments.)
One might suspect that I was fashioning a “reductio ad absurdum” argument, but you would be mistaken. My position was not to take the argument to the extreme, but rather to apply the same reasoning starting from a different set of assumptions and axioms.
Which brings us back to the topic of the validity or consistency of an argument. People often do not judge the conclusion independent of the rationality of the argument or the accuracy of the premises. One is left to wonder why the human animal is such an odd creature in this regard.
People can be perfectly logical, yet grounded in different premises and values, and arrive at the very same conclusion of a policy position. In political terms, it does not matter. This is the basis of the old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows.
If one opposes illegal immigration because of safety concerns, not wanting to terrorists to sneak across the border hiding amongst otherwise harmless illegal aliens, or one opposes illegal immigration because of cultural assimilation concerns, or one opposes illegal immigration because they are worried about the strain on the welfare state, or one opposes illegal immigration because of protectionist sympathies and wants to protect the wages of American workers, or even if one is an outright racist and doesn’t like Mexicans (I know that’s not a race); the conclusion remains the same that each opposes illegal immigration.
(Of course, everyone should oppose illegal immigration simply because it is illegal, but that is another issue.)
What does the reason matter, so long as it is reason? If the conclusion is reasoned, it is a valid argument even if you dispute the premises upon which that reasoning is founded? Should the person who opposes illegal immigration because of a fear of terrorists change his position merely because a racist also opposes open borders too?
What about the protectionist who wants to protect American jobs, is his position closer to the nationalist’s position? Is his position more valid because it is based in economic reasoning rather than jingoism?
The media keeps attempting a very biased and depraved guilt by association by lumping all who hold a position together, and then painting them all with the worst possible motive. This is not designed to persuade people away from their position, but to create division in the opposing ranks, a divide and conquer strategy.
You don’t want to be associated with those fascist/racist/sexist/whateverists do you?
Why should you care what another person’s reasons are for holding a position similar to your own? If the position you hold is derived from valid reasoning based upon your own moral values and what you believe a factually true basis, does it ever really matter why someone agrees with your conclusion? Or does it simply matter that they agree?
The real question you should always ask of yourself is whether your reasoning is valid and sound, or are you seeking validation through the opinion of others. Those who are secure in the validity of their own reasoning can accept alliance and assistance from any and all who agree on that issue, regardless of their reasons. Those who are insecure in their own thoughts, are susceptible to feeling that guilt by association, to have their opinions invalidated by the expressions, askance glances, and the online “tsk, tsking” variants.
I, for one, accept the assistance of any and all who would advance my policies, and not shirt for fear of guilt by association, for I am secure in the validity of my reasoning. It is not my duty to “disavow” anyone.
