There is often much use of terms like “strawman� and “ad hominem� in blog debates – and usually for very good reason.
But one that is often overlooked is “charity principle�.
Basically, it says that you should always assume the strongest, most generous reading of your opponent’s words to be true; that you should assume they speak the truth as they know it; and that you should not get bogged down in irrelevant stoushes about logical fallacies and ambiguous meanings of words if they contribute little to the substance of the discussion. Most importantly, if they say that they did not mean what you think they mean, then accept that. Don’t get into a debate about whether their previous words prove that you are right about their intentions.
The reason that this principle exists is not to enforce niceness in debates. It’s for two reasons: firstly, if the debate is about finding the truth, and you think you are right, then you should be able to respond to the most generous interpretation – you shouldn’t have to resort to cheap shots. Secondly, if the person really did intend the most generous meaning, then to assume otherwise achieves nothing except a waste of time, in which the person is forced to rephrase her point.
So, to pick a topic at random, if someone were to argue that she thinks FGM child abuse is terrible problem that we should work to eradicate, what would be the point in arguing with her over whether she really does feel that way?
Now don’t get me wrong: sometimes cheap points and pointless semantics are great fun. But if we are genuinely concerned about problems such as war, terrorism, the abuse of women and children, or the dangers of voting for the Greens, then we should all be more mindful what really matters.
Good post, Anna.
It’s actually the way that most mature people with social skills and empathy try to proceed in conversation. I wonder why it’s quite rare in some parts of the blogosphere.
Kim,
I think the answer to your wondering is in the first sentence of your response.
Guilty as charged…to a point.
I know i do try to steer away from an adversarial approach most times, but i guess over th past few years i’ve become incredibly tired of polarised debate and in many ways bored by (even my own- actually especially my own ) predictable responses. Thats not to negate the legitimacy of these responses, but just i prefer to think a little more obtusely these days. Before i rush to criticise, what may i be missing? Are there aspects of the issue that i’m overlooking? Have i even tried to find any merit in the views of those i oppose? What are they acting out of? What is my real experience in the area, and am i really hearing what stakeholders are saying?
Around this latest hot topic - sparked off around child sexual abuse, i guess i felt the depth and complexity was such a serious one that at least it rocked the Feds out of their inertia and has certainly brought attention to bear on the difficult circumstances facing these communities. So i was prepared to wait and see what happened, and hear the reactions of the various stakeholders.
ANd i think what they predominately appear to be saying is ,’ thanks for your passion, but hold off on the guns blazing approach. God knows you are complicit in much of this problem yourselves, but look, despite that, tHere are real ways you can help this situation now, but please take a moment to listen more carefully to the answers we have been saying for a long time.’
And, from what i’m hearing tonight, i actually think they are beginning to temper their response.
(please may this be true…!)
This is going to sound odd to you veterans, what is a strawman?and hominem?. I’m not being a smart arse, I really don’t know, I have read about these titles and untill now didn’t really care all that much. So, I’d better find out.
Anna - do you really mean ‘ambivalent meanings of words’, or do you mean ‘ambiguous’?
I’m amazed at how consistently this simple courtesy is denied to politicians to the point where the piled insults collapse under their own contradictions. i.e., George Bush is too stupid to organise a root in a brothel; George Bush stays in power because of his evil, all-encompassing consipracy; etc..
Or for a local flavour: the purported motives of JWH whether they involve aboriginal child abuse, or electoral rolls. At least the left concedes he’s organised I suppose.
People just have different perspectives on the world’s problems and ascribe different priorities and solutions to them. It’s not personal, and evil intent just isn’t that widespread amongst the everymen. Civil people can disagree without resorting to banners like “Behead those who insult [insert belief here]”.
Play the ball, not the man as they should say on the football chat board I spend far too much time on (but they’re worse than anyone). As your resident RWDB troll I always imagine I’m at a lefty dinner-party when I poke my head out the hole in the skirting board (sheesh the opinions here are almost identical to any dinner party I go to). So I might tweak a nose but I won’t swing punches at it - it might be someone I know behind that username.
Sounds pretty twee and head girlish., Problem is everyone is guilty of it, dominant bloggers using false personas more so than anyone.
See what happens if you have dump philosophy? As clueless as a four year old.
Lang Mack,
A strawman argument is where you construct an argument that no-one has made and then knock it down. The example from wikipedia is good - Person A argues that children should not be allowed to run in the street and person B then argues against keeping children locked up all day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
An ad hominem attack is just playing the man (who may be a woman) and not the ball - Something like “You are wrong because you are a righty / lefty / tall / short etc.” and not answering the substance of the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
heh…i’ve just re-read your post, and on first reading, i thought you were taking the piss out of people who hold to this principle. Sorry all, i wasnt trying to sound self-righteous ^ above, i thought i was going to have to justify why i didnt rush to howl down
Andrew, thank you , I’ll re,read your links tomorrow. What I see as BS, I take as BS. So probably that’s why I never bothered..
Here’s a textbook example of the absence of the charity principle:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/27/its-the-grog-stupid/#comment-380336
Anna Says:
This type of debate is exceedingly rare. It’s not something that is usually refered to as a “debate” at all.
Sounds to me like you’ve been sucked in by the wingnut meme that says we’ll listen to you if you’re civil.
But the corollary is always that you’re disagreeing with us, which is uncivil. Therefore, we won’t listen to you. And besides that, you’re a leftie, pinkie commie lesbian. But we say that in a civil way, or something. And STFU, bitch.
The appropriate response to the wingnut meme is not to apply the charity principle.
Thanks, Laura. Yes I meant ambiguous.
That’ll teach me to rush posts!
Whatever happened to the great civility stoushes of yesteryear? Do we need another Sophie Masson to inspire more?
Seriously, words worth listening to, Anna.
Notes From the Blender / Dept. of Mix-and-Match…
What about the need for combining the “charity principle” with the concept of the strawman (to cite two recurring themes on this thread).
In other words, before one accuses someone of making a strawman argument, maybe one should consider whether it’s possible that the original argument can reasonably be seen as leading to the conclusions of the ostensible “straw” counter-argument, in a previously unexpected or unseen way. Viz., it’s certainly possible that two arguers see different potential scenarios and extrapolate different potential outcomes, depending on a host of variables (shifting context, differing life experiences, etc.) and it’s also possible that in one’s original argument, one simply hadn’t considered all the reasonable ways it could play.
To go back to even the example of the (perfectly good) textbook sample of a strawman argument cited above…
It’s perfectly possible to imagine a scenario where the only realistic options are either to let children ‘run in the street,’ or else to keep them ‘locked up all day’ indoors. If that turned out to be the case, then you’d have to start examining priorities and making difficult choices, and an argument against “keeping them locked up all day” isn’t categorically mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Just makin’ life harder for ya. (and btw, very good point in the original post, to begin with!)
I’m as pure as the driven snow, and would never partake in such uncivility. Nor would I criticise anyone for voting for
mini meKevin Rudward.I like the ‘charity principle’ as part of a personal ethics of blog commenting, although I don’t employ it in a homogeneous fashion. I also like the ‘humility principle’ - where sometimes you’ve just got to admit to yourself that you don’t know that much about a particular topic, or that you may have overstepped the mark, or that you can be a bit of an * occasionally etc.
The problem with any ethical principle like this is that, anything beyond the mere suggestion to others can become quite moralistic and judgmental. That is the inverse of civility or charity: it’s potential as a de facto judgment on others, exclusionary strategy or way to downplay legitimate anger and frustration. While I like your post, Anna, and I agree with the substance of it, I do wonder whether it’s going to be taken as anything more than a strategic metacommentary with it’s own political effects by those you intend to interpellate.
What wouldn’t be taken as a “strategic metacommentary”, though, Adam? That doesn’t invalidate the force of the argument.
And which ethical principle isn’t judgemental? Obviously to some degree it is an “exclusionary strategy” but one with good reason behind it.
Of course, Mark. I’m not disagreeing with what Anna’s written, but it IS normative and prescriptive. The problem with terms like ‘charity’ and ‘civility’ is that they always have an inverse. This is why I struggle with moral pronouncements, and I think that ethics should be without principles in the last instance. It is constant negotiation around specificities. You’ll notice that I’m not suggesting that the force of the argument is invalidated, and in this specific instance I happen to agree that some of these threads could benefit from the wider application of something like this principle. I also suggest another principle to complement it.
I happen to support this exclusionary strategy, then, in case my musings suggested otherwise. I think it will be fairly obvious to some what is being said here, and I hope that they take heed and realise that for the most part LP is hostile to those methods. That is the point, right?
One misuse of the charity principle that I can imagine relates to concepts like ‘interest’, or ‘positionality’. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw attention to the possibility that people’s arguments in some way relate to their positions within a system or structure, or to their interests. Once again, don’t let these thoughts be misconstrued: I think debating motivation or intention is a really bad way to engage in an argument, and I still agree with the specific ways that these strategies have misdirected threads.
I’m not sure that’s a coherent position, philosophically, Adam. If you’re talking about the sort of Levinasian/Derridean style ungrounded ethics, I think the former is incoherent and theological and the latter is really getting at the supplement of irrationality that’s a constitutive part of any ethical decision. However, I don’t think that the opposition between a universalist and a particularistic ethics is a real one - in the sense that all universals necessarily derive meaning only from iterated instantiations in the particular. That’s what I think the Derridean argument is anyway!
Adam, I just want to make the point (which I thought I had made clear in my post) that I am not talking about civility, politeness or anything of the sort. One can be an arrogant arsehole and still employ the charity principle.
In short, it is simply the concept that if your idea is so great, you should be able to argue against the strongest possible interpretation of your opponent’s meaning, without resorting to cheap shots. It’s a logical point, as opposed to a moral one.
I think that’s an important distinction Anna, and I take note. But you are implying an ethics (in the widest sense) of argument as well as suggesting a logical reason to take on that ethics. Logic is not deployed neutrally here, is what I’m saying, (as if it ever could be?).
I’m not sure I’m making a Derridian point, Mark. To be honest, I think I’m just thinking in public about some of my immediate responses to these suggestions. I think your account of Derrida is sound from my understanding. I might be more generous to Levinas, but I’m hardly an expert.
Well, no, Adam, I don’t think it can be, but again I don’t think any of the queries you have raised really affects Anna’s argument materially.
Adam:
Not to indulge in strategic meta-metacommentary or anything, but doesn’t what you’ve just been saying apply also to the notion of ‘misdirecting’ threads? What is a ‘non-misdirected thread’?
I also think that automatically anti-prescriptive and anti-exclusionary positions can be a bit paralysing, and can accidentally throw out a few overlooked babies with the proverbial. (Though you do sort of acknowledge this.) To be anti-prescriptive is in itself actually quite prescriptive, and even just the word ‘exclusionary’ is rather exclusionary.
Just meta-commentin’, for the sake of the ideas, as I think you also were. But your comments here have reminded me of the bit in A.S. Byatt’s Possession where Maud gets blocked in the writing her conference paper on metaphor once she realises the language she must write it in is itself full of metaphors.
That reminds me I really should read A.S. Byatt, PC. She’s one of my sister’s favourite authors, and I’ve been incited to do so for years now…
Now that does sound like a moment when Derrida would be very useful, Pavlov’s Cat. Someone should’ve given Maud “White Mythologies”.
Lest it be assumed that I disapprove of ’strategic metacommentary’, I would like to state unreservedly that it’s as unavoidable as the normative and prescriptive. And I take note of the fact that using words like ‘exclusionary’ has certain effects. I don’t see myself as being anti-prescriptive, but I can see how it might look like that.
My point about that reading - ie as ’strategic metacommentary’ - is that, quality of the logical argument aside, this intervention can also be read an ethical pronouncement designed to interpellate certain commentators on this blog. Hopefully they will accept the logical argument, but given the affective dimension of blog exchanges, and the interested nature of this post, will their non-charitable tendencies prevail?
I still think you’re missing the distinction between ethics as in personal morality and the older, broader sense of ethics as “excellence� – ie good in both senses of the word.
Unless you think that we should be so neutral as to allow ineffective arguments, I don’t see your point. The rules of logic exist in order to get the best conclusions – to get closer to the truth. Like the rules of grammar, they can be used to score cheap points, but they actually exist to help us communicate clearly. I didn’t argue that you can’t argue about a person’s motives ever. But it’s important to consider if and how it’s relevant.
All I’m saying is that if you don’t follow the rules, then you don’t deserve to be taken seriously in a real debate. Of course if the point is to “win� then one can break as many of the rules of logic as one can get away with not being called on. That’s a separate issue.
Now my point about ‘interest’ and ‘positionality’ was a hypothetical only. I don’t attribute it to you, Anna, nor would I presume to.
My point is that I’m not making a point insofar as it rejects your argument. I’m trying to tease out other dimensions of this situation. Hadn’t really intended to waste as much time as it appears I have, and I hope you’ll forgive me that. And in that spirit, I’m not going to offer any philosophically inconsistent musings about ‘truth’ or ‘clarity’ either
Out of curiosity, Anna, should the charity principle be applied to the words and policies of politicians? JWH, for example?
Paulus, politicians are not your interlocutors in the same way as bloggers are.
And half (if not more) of what all Labor and Coalition leaders say is bullshit and spin.
Except for Paul Keating!