Alexander C. Cartwright
Changing
ideas is difficult; especially when it comes to our most cherished believes.
Even though it’s easy to pass on a well-written and well-argued article to a friend,
there is little chance that the article is going to have much effect on his on
his or her thinking. I have found a very effective strategy for debating and
speaking with those who don’t necessarily agree with me: I ask the
following: What hypothetical or theoretical fact, logical mechanism,
statistic, or conclusion would cause you to change your mind regarding that
position?
Though most of us do not have an
answer to this question for each position we hold, we should. What would cause
you to believe that the welfare state is a good thing? That socialism is the
superior method of social organization? That natural rights exist? Or even that
Jesus died for our sins? By having an answer to this question, you are acknowledging
that there is a hypothetical case in which you would change your position,
given that your hypothetical threshold (whatever it may be) is met. By
acknowledging that there are circumstances under which you would change your
mind, you are demonstrating that your position is not one that you dogmatically
hold but rather one that is the product of some critical reflection.
I think that
answering this question for each and every debate we have is so fundamental
that I’m comfortable saying, those who have no answer it are not worth talking
to. If someone explains that there is no hypothetical or theoretical world under
which they would change their position, then it is not possible to debate with them.
They have, by responding ‘no’ acknowledged that there is nothing that would
convince them that there position is wrong or unfounded. Those who respond ‘no’
to this question are by definition being dogmatic, not valuing the pursuit of
truth, showing their disconcert with reflecting on their own positions, are not
practicing the virtues of intellectual honesty, and quite possibly are
‘irrational’ individuals.
I’ve
found that even thought many people see the value in answering this questions,
they feel as if they are conceding their own position by admitting a
theoretical circumstance in which they would change their mind. This is
incorrect. By simply acknowledging that if, for example, socialism lead to a
more just and prosperous society to capitalism, one would advocate socialism,
he is not at all conceding his position or undermining the strength of the
argument for capitalism; in fact, by admitting that there set of circumstances
in which you would change you view, makes your own view appear to be the
product of critical reflection and thus stronger.
One might
object to this method of forcing your opponent to be intellectually honest by
pointing out that it appeals to consequentialist intuitions. By asking someone
under what circumstances they would change their position, or asking them to
imagine a hypothetical outcome that would cause them to change an opinion, the
question explicitly appeals to the ‘consequences’ and has nothing to say about
any intrinsic good, value, or honor that comes from the act of holding a
position or doing what one believes to be correct regardless of consequence.
This is a reasonable and correct objection. This question is consequentialist
in nature; I don’t see that as any mark against it.
In order to
stay on the pursuit of truth and practice the virtue of intellectual honesty,
there should be a hypothetical or theoretical fact, logical mechanism,
statistic, or conclusion would cause us to change your minds for each and every position we hold. Furthermore, before any debate, we
need to be asking our opponents this question not only so that we can make sure
they are worth debating, but also because it allows us to discover which points
we need to appeal to in order to win the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment