Metaargumentative Aside: Ethics of Arguing

Paradoxum · Feb 2, 2017

Received said:
Do you believe in character?

I believe personal have character... personality.

But I don't think all 'virtues' are good. Courage is only good if used for good. I wouldn't give someone credit for being a courageous evil person.

I'm going to take @quatona's legitimately meticulous point and change "debate" to "argument". I don't really dig the point of debates in most cases.

Fair enough.

The latter. And he's right on point here, I think: think of how many people who at least implicitly consider themselves to be good but really are incapable of doing bad. To earn the first you have to be capable of the second.

How many people are incapable of bad?

Hank77 · Feb 2, 2017

Received said:
And maybe this reflects differing conceptions of what constitutes dignity, and that's totally part of my point. This also goes hand-in-hand with determining what constitutes negative behavior.

So if I'm debating with someone who says my arguments are stupid, retarded, I'm full of it, or whatever, that violates ethics in the basic Kantian/golden rule sense of treating others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated. It's interesting that what spawned this thread was a debate on Youtube where someone opened with pretty much the labels I've referred to, and after me doing my shrink thing and challenging her thinking, she finally said, basically, "I have had people call me bad things all the time," implying that this justified her using similar negative language in her argument -- which actually is the idea of do unto others as has been done unto you rather than the other way around.

Well, some people are down with this type of inflammatory rhetoric and are okay with having people throw it their way. That makes it ethical for them to use these terms, but not ethical for me to continue to debate with them. But I seriously doubt they really don't mind people using these superfluous inflammatory comments. And we have to consider the Kantian universality ideal: if everyone were to debate in ways that involved inflammatory rhetoric (which as I argued above in my response to Chesterton is fallacious by itself, regardless of ethical considerations), what would this world look like? To me it would look like a world where people are responding from their limbic brains, which would invite defensiveness in other people, making the goal of argumentation (helping people see the truth) more pointless.

On a deeper level, I think a person who uses these superfluous inflammatory bits of rhetoric in their argument (full of it, stupid, etc.) have characters that aren't as refined or advanced as people who don't, and that's what I mean when I say I'm reinforcing negative behavior by continuing to debate with them when they're throwing down this rhetoric. By continuing to debate with them, I'm in a sense giving them the impression (if not downright condoning) their use of inflammatory rhetoric.

I prefer to kill them with kindness/grace as the word says it is pouring hot coals on their head. This is not a bad thing for them.

zippy2006 · Feb 2, 2017

Received said:
Here's something pretty nasty and in my view hard for most people to see.

Person A and B get into a debate. As they continue the debate, A begins debating more aggressively, throwing down inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., such-and-such is nonsense, crap, stupid, dumb, "man you're full of it," etc.) while the content of his argument is still worth debating. Person B has two choices: he can continue to debate and thereby give up a bit of his dignity by responding to person A's superfluous jabs, or he can stop debating as a matter of dignity and/or appeals to argumentative ethics.

Problems happen in both cases: in the first case (where B continues debating with the ever-growing inflammatory A) B sacrifices a bit of his dignity and even reputation by continuing; he even can throw stuff back at A, in which case the debate becomes more and more pointless given that people are less likely to consider viewpoints seriously when they perceive themselves as attacked.

In the second case, where B says he won't continue debating as a matter of dignity and/or ethics, it's extremely easy for A, who usually doesn't have even an awaerness of the unethical argumentative nature of his rhetorical jabs, to think he's won -- or at least that others viewing the debate to think A won -- simply because B quit.

So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior by people like A when we debate with them, or giving the impression that we have no response.

Thoughts?

This tends to be a common scenario on internet forums, doesn't it?

My approach is fairly simple: stop interacting with the problematic poster, but address his arguments when they are referenced by others. Generally there will be a group of participants, and if any of the problematic poster's ideas were worthwhile, other posters will point them out and rehash them.

You could even explicitly state that you are done interacting with the problematic poster, but would be happy to entertain his ideas with more upstanding forum-goers.

zippy2006 · Feb 2, 2017

quatona said:
Let me first give you my understanding of a "debate" (as opposed to a "discussion"):
While a discussion is a cooperative game ("let´s share ideas, and reason together in order to enhance our understanding"), a debate is solely about winning (and "winning" means persuading an actual or imaginary audience of you being right). It is not about who has the better character, it is not about being fair, it is not about insight - it´s all about winning, at all costs. There aren´t many rules, and even using fallacies and rhethorics (including ad hominems and such) isn´t against the rules (for some, employing these devices is even what makes you a great debater).

Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".

I don't think I understand debate or badminton the same way you do.

If you look at various definitions of "debate," I think you'll find it to be much less cut-throat than you propose. For example, Oxford:

1. A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote

quatona · Feb 3, 2017

zippy2006 said:
I don't think I understand debate or badminton the same way you do. If you look at various definitions of "debate," I think you'll find it to be much less cut-throat than you propose. For example, Oxford:

1. A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote

How´s that different from what I pictured a debate as, and, more importantly, how would picking this definition affect the actual points I made? (Apart from the fact that from the context I wasn´t under the impression that Received talked about formal debates in public meetings or legislative assemblies.)

Received · Feb 3, 2017

I'm slow in responding because I read this post and thought, "hm, I pretty much agree with all of it, so..."

quatona said:
I agree with this observation and analysis.
I do understand that this may be perceived as problematic in various ways - I just don´t understand what exactly the problem is you want to point out.
I mean, if I notice upfront that the other person plays in a way I don´t like (and which suggests to me that it will get even worse) - why even start playing?

My problem -- the unavoidable one -- is debating with people who seem or are sincere and, well, nice at the beginning, and then slowly suck you in by gradually throwing in inflammatory rhetoric.

Then I'm at a tough place, given that these discussions are usually public (online), because I can either go on a metaargumentative point and pay attention to the rules that are going on here, which will be seen usually as stalling or at most irrelevant, or just stop responding and give the person the impression that their perspective is correct.

Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.

And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).

Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".

Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough. ).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place. )

Well, I think the image other people have of us -- and in a public setting what other people who are watching our discussion have of us -- is irrelevant. i'm okay with letting people form whatever opinion they want of me -- if I can't stop it without it just not being worth it. And apropos the reinforcement bit, I think it's sort of my obligation to not reinforce behavior that's just going to cause a pain in the rear for other people.

Chesterton · Feb 3, 2017

Received said:
Because the argument speaks for itself, meaning any label which functions as a judgment about the argument is superfluous; and because labeling in inflammatory ways begs the question because it assumes the conclusion is true by the label being used.

Finasteride, but I'm worried about the tiny fraction of folks who have 5a-reductase problems, causing DHT to be all messy. Oh wait, wrong forum.

I'm not being clear: when I speak about making the leap from "wrong" to inflammatory rhetoric, I'm pointing out how you seemed to equate calling an argument "wrong" (which I can totally deal with given the lack of inflammatory rhetoric, even though it begs the question) with it being "stupid", "retarded", etc.

Let the argument tell the person they're wrong, because pointing out that something is "wrong" begs the question. However, most importantly, saying someone is "wrong" is far from engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, which this thread is all about. There's nothing unethical about saying someone is "wrong", only something fallacious.

So the thread is only about "inflammatory" "rhetoric"? I may have been misled by your fancy title which made it seem like it was about something else. Okay, I agree people should be nice and be civil. But I believe in rhetoric, and whether someone catches fire is up to them.

quatona said:
Let me first give you my understanding of a "debate" (as opposed to a "discussion"):
While a discussion is a cooperative game ("let´s share ideas, and reason together in order to enhance our understanding"), a debate is solely about winning (and "winning" means persuading an actual or imaginary audience of you being right).

But when someone offers to discuss, to tell you a thought, to share an idea, it's the same as if someone offers to play you a song, or give you a cupcake. You will, in fact, assess whether the idea, or the song, or the cupcake is good or bad. That's just part of how humans react to external stimuli.

It is not about who has the better character, it is not about being fair, it is not about insight - it´s all about winning, at all costs. There aren´t many rules, and even using fallacies and rhethorics (including ad hominems and such) isn´t against the rules (for some, employing these devices is even what makes you a great debater).

So, if you are concerned about the effects of your behaviour, the first question, for me, would be: Do I want to play this game, at all?
For me, the answer is no. If, however, you agree with playing that game, don´t complain if it runs you into predictable issues.

Second: The topics discussed here do not lend themselves to debate, imo. This is about deeply held beliefs that people hold for a reason. These beliefs aren´t simply disposable. Engaging in competitive post-hoc rationalizations therefore means: You might not only lose an argument, you might lose the ground you stand on. So a debate isn´t the enjoyable competitive game that it pretends to be. To exaggerate a little: it can be life-threatening. So people will use teeth and claws, and their killer instincts will come out as a means of defense.

I agree it can be life-threatening. But isn't that more reason to compete, rather than less?

Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.

No, those terms don't indicate the feeling that you're superior, they indicate that you believe you may have your own individual opinion. Maybe it's an American thing, but I believe every human has a human right to an opinion. You have the right to tell me you think I'm wrong, and I have the right to tell you I think you're wrong. And as mentioned above, we all do this as part of our daily lives necessarily.

And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).

Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".

Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough. ).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place. )

I wonder if you understand the English word "debate". It is the very same as an athletic competition, except using the brain instead of the body. I don't think you're an insane idiot for wanting to win on the badminton court, but I do think that competing with ideas is more important because whether you lose or win you may can learn something actually useful.

I think it strange that the more important something is, the less you want to compete at it. I'm no shrink, but it makes me wonder if you fear losing at debate in a way you don't fear losing at badminton, since nothing really important comes of a badminton loss, whereas something important might possibly come of a metaphysics debate loss.

quatona · Feb 3, 2017

Received said:
I'm slow in responding because I read this post and thought, "hm, I pretty much agree with all of it, so..."

My problem -- the unavoidable one -- is debating with people who seem or are sincere and, well, nice at the beginning, and then slowly suck you in by gradually throwing in inflammatory rhetoric.

Then I'm at a tough place, given that these discussions are usually public (online), because I can either go on a metaargumentative point and pay attention to the rules that are going on here, which will be seen usually as stalling or at most irrelevant, or just stop responding and give the person the impression that their perspective is correct.

Well, I think the image other people have of us -- and in a public setting what other people who are watching our discussion have of us -- is irrelevant. i'm okay with letting people form whatever opinion they want of me -- if I can't stop it without it just not being worth it. And apropos the reinforcement bit, I think it's sort of my obligation to not reinforce behavior that's just going to cause a pain in the rear for other people.

I am a little confused, Received.
I get mixed messages about being concerned with people´s images of you, the other person, the argument, the effects on the other person, the effects on the audience etc. Some of these you seem to regard relevant (or else all this wouldn´t even be an issue), about others you say you don´t consider them relevant.

quatona · Feb 3, 2017

Chesterton said:
But when someone offers to discuss, to tell you a thought, to share an idea, it's the same as if someone offers to play you a song, or give you a cupcake. You will, in fact, assess whether the idea, or the song, or the cupcake is good or bad. That's just part of how humans react to external stimuli.

Yes. Not sure why you started this paragraph with a "but".

I agree it can be life-threatening. But isn't that more reason to compete, rather than less?

Because you are out to kill someone?

No, those terms don't indicate the feeling that you're superior, they indicate that you believe you may have your own individual opinion.

For believing I have my own opinion none of these terms are needed.

Maybe it's an American thing, but I believe every human has a human right to an opinion. You have the right to tell me you think I'm wrong, and I have the right to tell you I think you're wrong.

I didn´t mean to limit those rights. In fact, I didn´t say anything about rights at all. A debate is there for people who like to tell each other they are wrong. As far as I am concerned, they can do it until the cows come home.

And as mentioned above, we all do this as part of our daily lives necessarily.

Actually, no, you hadn´t mentioned this. And, no, I do not agree with your assessment.

I wonder if you understand the English word "debate". It is the very same as an athletic competition, except using the brain instead of the body.

That´s exactly why I used badminton for an analogy.

I don't think you're an insane idiot for wanting to win on the badminton court, but I do think that competing with ideas is more important because whether you lose or win you may can learn something actually useful.

Have you ever lost a debate on metaphysics?
Where I come, people tend to learn faster and better in when not being put under pressure. After all, a Badminton match isn´t about learning, it´s about winning. The learning part had taken place earlier, und different conditions.

I think it strange that the more important something is, the less you want to compete at it.

Why would I compete just because my belief is important to me?
I don´t compete concerning the question which song or cupcake is better, either. I can easily leave others their preferences and tastes.

I'm no shrink, but it makes me wonder if you fear losing at debate in a way you don't fear losing at badminton, since nothing really important comes of a badminton loss, whereas something important might possibly come of a metaphysics debate loss.

That´s because you didn´t get my point (and, of course, because you immediately jump from "I don´t understand" to "makes me wonder [insert pop-psychological negative personal assumption]": Before losing a life-threatening debate the defense mechanisms as described in the OP will reliably kick in and prevent the experience of a loss. That´s why such debates are imo pointless, to begin with, and that´s exactly why they go the way they typically go.

Rebecca12 · Mar 1, 2017

The answer depends on your goal. If your goal is to be persuasive to those who do not share your position, tactics like insults, gross generalizations, and attributing bad motives to the other party will backfire. Legitimately so.

Search

Search

Metaargumentative Aside: Ethics of Arguing

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

More options

Hank77

Well-Known Member

More options

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

More options

zippy2006

Dragonsworn

More options

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??

More options

Received

True love waits in haunted attics

More options

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

More options

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??

More options

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??

More options

Rebecca12

Active Member

More options

Need help?

Similar threads