On arguing for what you believe in

DISCLAIMER: This is one of my more challenging posts. If you don't get it the first time, try try again. This is definitely one of the more important ones.

There is a lot of false debate out there today. Coke or Pepsi? Capitalism or Communism? Profession or Trade? Shaved or Groomed? Onshore or Offshore?

When most people are engaging in these debates, they are usually using reason to justify their underlying personal preferences. I like coke because I associate it with social success (underlying preference) whereas pepsi seems more like the loser's drink. Everyone knows Winners drink coke.

When we engage in debates like these that rely purely on rationality, we get distracted from those underlying preferences. 'I like coke because it tastes better' might seem to make more rational sense to some, but doesn't convey any insight. The debate isn't furthered. If we really want to decide which soft drink is better, we have to assert a principle that is connected to a 'moral value' (see below). Associating coke with social success explains my preference; social success is good and so therefore is coke. Therefore, I am of the opinion that coke is good. This makes sense and conveys a greater understanding of the issue. With this knowledge, we can question whether it is right that I believe coke is better than pepsi. We do this by asking whether there is a necessary connection between social success and drinking coke. Most reasonable people can easily see that there is no connection: my reason for liking coke over pepsi is therefore invalid. There might be other moral reasons, such as the fact that I legitimately believe it tastes better, but a moral preference (in this case a moral preference for aesthetic experience i.e. 'Taste') cannot and will never be explained by rationality. It is good in and of itself.

(Moral) preferences, or 'moral principles', form the basis of legitimate reason. Reason can be used to justify pretty much anything, depending on the underlying moral principles. Take communism. The moral principles of 'the state should provide', 'there is no god, only the material' and 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' add up to a system that, while theoretically watertight, is a practical nightmare. The reason is the faulty underlying moral principles.

The underlying principles of communism are not fundamentally good in and of themselves. They express values and a certain worldview, but I do not think that anyone would go as far as to say that these are principles that everyone could agree with, universally. To practically apply reason in a way that benefits ourselves and those around us, we need to operate using moral principles that are considered to be universal. This list of universal moral principles (that cannot be reduced any further, and entail a necessary a priori moral acceptance/rejection) include but are not limited to: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability (friendship), practical reasonableness, and spirituality. Unless we can trace our reasoning back to a permutation of one or more moral principles, we are not making a Good Argument. 

The practical effect of this is that when you critique someone else's view, you have something better to say, as you are rationally critiquing their moral premises. Rationality does have value in and of itself, but only when it is connected to an identifiable underlying moral premise. By clearly linking your rational argument to a moral premise, you are showing for all the world to see the 'middle ground' you took to arrive at your conclusion. This is important if we want to honestly engage in Legitimate Debate.

'Morality' is a loaded term (see below), but moral premises are relatively easy to evalutate: people usually recognise Good when it is staring them in the face. And if they do not, moral rationality at least shows the way to a direct comparison to competing moral principles. It is the only real way of candidly engaging in Legitimate Debate. This is because it furnishes us with Practical Knowledge (a topic for another post). 

Unfortunately, our society (especially our society of removed 'intellectuals') has become far too reliant on rationality alone. Through this faulty moral reasoning we have come to justify the detention of refugees, an inefficient and unworkable carbon tax, and unjustified welfare handouts that have the effect of creating mass dependancy and entitlement. These are not good things, and in my opinion, lack legitimate justification. 

So next time you say something, think 'what am I really saying?'




Note: 'Moral values' and 'Morality' have come to represent things that are actually far removed from their actual meaning. When we think of 'morality', we typically think of abortion, the war on drugs, world poverty, income distribution and religion. While all of these issues are intimately connected with morality, they distract from Morality itself. Morality, in its purest form, is the assertion that something is 'good'. Therefore, whenever we have a preference or an opinion, we are implicitly saying (by asserting it) that it is a 'good' one. Therefore, any preference and opinion is really a moral statement. The fact that morality has come to be viewed as divorced from our opinions is one of the great tragedies of our society, and a determinative factor in explaining many of the problems we see today.
As always, if there is any points of clarity, I would love your feedback.