Saturday, December 07, 2002

Truth in Ethical Debate

In engaging in ethical debates, including debates about political philosophy, we are, of course, interested in uncovering the truth, no matter what it turns out to be. The aim is not to persuade others to concede defeat and accept one's position. There is a fact of the matter about right and wrong, about good political philosophy and bad. Debate therefore is not properly the effort to persuade others to value what one does but to prove to them that they should.

However, the notion of objective moral facts is problematic, given that (as Hume demonstrated) morals are values, or attitudes, rather than facts. Still, error arises in two ways: (1.) when one's values are misinformed about the relevant facts (as, for example, when one is a socialist and believes socialism has no record of inefficiency, or when one supports slavery on the grounds that blacks aren't really people); or (2.) when one's values are incoherent (as for example, when one accepts that socialism is inefficient, values prosperity and supports socialism, or when one accepts that blacks are people, believes in universal rights to liberty, and supports slavery). The abortion debate concerns itself with the facts (whether the fetus is a person) and with coherence (whether an abortion is more like removing a cyst or evicting a squatter, or more like murdering one's neighbor). This is all there is to figuring out the right thing to do. There are facts, then, though these are generated by our shared attitudes. Debate is the effort to settle the objective question of whether a given value is or is not consistent with the relevant facts and with all of our other values. Whether to invade Iraq is another example: what are the facts about Iraq as a threat to other countries and to its people, and is our desire to avoid the human and financial costs of invasion strong enough to override our desire to avoid the risk Iraq poses.

The point, then, is to know when to admit that one is wrong. Moral debates are tricky because particularly impassioned. Passion tends to have more momentum that justification at times. It is good to remind oneself that at any time one should be prepared to admit that one was wrong if the evidence shows it. In their debates, conservatives must be prepared to embrace socialism, and socialists must be prepared to embrace free market liberty. If you find yourself in a debate with only the desire to prove the other wrong, you've gone 'round the bend. Take a step away and ask yourself whether you could be wrong. Did I ever do that when I thought about conservatives when I was 22? No, I did not. I simply hated them. I believed the wrong things for a long time. Debate takes modesty. It takes subordinating one's pride to what's true and good. But these are not things outside of one's own deepest values. On the contrary, the subordination is precisely to them. It should be easy to be ready to admit that one was wrong. Why would one want to cling to a value that runs against the larger set of values one holds dear?

It is therefore reader appreciation day at Philosoblog. Actually, it is every day, only you don't know it. I'm very grateful to you for reading this blog and taking me to task in the comments. We're after the truth here. I therefore toast you with this fine Canadian beer (Upper Canada Dark Ale)....ah!...there.