Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
When people are right, the strength of their arguments and irrefutable logic should be sufficient to show that. There are very few recorded instances of Socrates, Aristotle, or even Bertrand Russell* screaming like lunatics, threatening people, or shouting insults. In fact, both Socrates and Aristotle were pretty severely punished for failing to get caught up in the lunacy of the society around them.
What all of these people had in common was a belief that the logical soundness, and not the volume, of an argument was the determining factor in what made it right. Yes, this created conflict, but only with those who realized that their dogmatic beliefs were not based on sound, intelligible principles.
What would they say about the current state of discourse in the United States? Well, I am going to take the opportunity to use my Bachelor of the Arts in philosophy and try to piece together what these philosophers might have said about American politics today. Please note that these conclusions are just hypothetical and only serve to illustrate what might happen if a select group of philosophers were to engage in discussion. These are not supposed to be viable political answers.
Socrates
Stats: Born c. 470 B.C. Died 399 B.C. Notable for being the FATHER OF WESTERN FREAKIN' PHILOSOPHY! Also, the Socratic Method.
Here's how it would go with Socrates v. The Entire Healthcare Debate
Healthcare Debate: Unintelligible Babble!
Socrates: Woah! Chill out. What's all the fuss?
Healthcare Reformer: We want to reform healthcare.
Socrates: Why?
H.R.: To make society better!
S.: How does reforming healthcare make society better?
H.R.: By making people more healthy!
S: Why is healthy better?
H.R.: People live longer, and that is better?
S: So you say that longer life is always better?
H.R.: Yes.
S.: Tell me, is someone who lives longer always more virtuous?
H.R.: No.
S: Do you think that longer life without virtue is better than a shorter life without virtue?
H.R.: No, but what about all of the virtuous people who will also live longer? Surely they should have healthcare so as to spread virtue through longer lives! They may be able to make the non-virtuous virtuous.
S: What happens to an apple when you leave it on the tree?
H.R.: It rots.
S: and a sword left in the rain unsheathed?
H.R.: It rusts.
S: So would you not agree that it is the nature of the physical world to corrupt the essence of that which resides in it too long?
H.R.: But what about wine? It gets better with age!
S.: For a time, but eventually the seal on the cask erodes and even the finest wine becomes undrinkable vinegar with time. Such it is with man. He is born a feeble and unformed child, ages into a virtuous citizen, and then begins, at least in body, to corrode into feebleness again. And just as an apple that has begun to rot may still be salvaged in part, it is not long before the corruption of one part corrupts the rest. So too a man who has become corrupt in body will soon be corrupt in mind and soul as well. Surely a society of corrupt men is not for the better.
Healthcare Reform Opponent: See, even Socrates thinks healthcare reform is stupid.
S: That's not exactly what I said. I just said it does not make society better.
H.R.O.: How is that different?
S: Why do you oppose reform?
H.R.O.: Because they are trying to destroy the best healthcare system in the world!
S: What does the good have to fear from the bad?
H.R.O.: The bad can corrupt the good. You said so yourself. An apple rots if part begins to rot.
S: Is an apple good?
H.R.O.: I like apples.
S: Is everything you like good? Do not most men have bad desires from time to time.
H.R.O.: Yeah. So what?
S: The apple is corruptible, but the apple is not itself good. The form of the good must be incorruptible as corruption begets wickedness, but can only do so if there is wickedness within, just as a short man cannot be made tall, or a blue flower cannot become red. The good must not have wickedness to be the good, hence the good is incorruptible and no harm can be done to it. Can the current healthcare system be corrupted?
H.R.O.: Well, if the socialist get there way it will be terrible!
S.: Then the current healthcare system cannot be good, right?
H.R.O.: But it is the best in the world!
S.: Just like the wine I mentioned earlier may be the best there is in this world, it does not mean it is perfect. If something is not perfect, it means there are flaws, and where flaws can be found they must be corrected, right?
H.R.O.: That seems reasonable.
S.: Then surely the flaws in healthcare must need correction and reform is a step toward making the best system closer to the ideal.
Everyone: But doesn't that mean we are both wrong?
S.: Yes. But that does not mean there isn't a right answer, just that you have not examined your assumptions enough to see what it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a trial to get to.
Aristotle
Stats: Born 384 B.C. Died 322 B.C. Notable for formal logic, reason, and the theory of causality.
How it would go: Aristotle v. Tax Protesters (In the form of a lecture)
The Proposition (presented by a tax protester who is not foaming at the mouth): One should not have to pay taxes as taxes are an imposition on one's natural liberty to associate or disassociate with society as one pleases. Our founding fathers knew this and banned the government from direct taxation. Modern tax laws therefore defy nature and tradition.
Analysis (presented by Aristotle): 1) Taxes are the primary means by which government secures the funds necessary to perform the functions that society has constituted it to do. 2) It is natural that this should occur. 3) Tradition has been misread to justify the proposition, but reality requires a different outcome.
1) Society expects certain things from its government,among them security, infrastructure to promote commerce, and the protections of law. None of these goals can be accomplished without money. Governments get money through taxation, ergo taxation is necessary to sustain government.
2) It is natural for people to want government. Although the proposition suggests that people have a natural right to choose to associate or disassociate from society as they see fit, it is inherent in the nature of the species that humans are political animals, needing the company of at least one other human to fulfill the basic biological function of procreation, which is the natural goal of all species. It makes sense, therefore that people would congregate in societies to increase the odds of finding mates, participating in the division of labor to increase the time which can be spent in leisure (i.e. mating) and securing the promise of society not to kill or harm that person, their mates, or their offspring. Even those of the lowest intellectual and social distinctions fear exile as the human being naturally gravitates toward society. Therefore, one who has the desire to remove himself from society is acting contrary to his nature and his right to this aberrant behavior must be considered a political right and not a natural right. As it is a political right, its extent may be bounded by the polity as a whole, hence the requirement of taxation, in so far as it limits the right to disassociate freely from society, is not a violation of natural rights. Furthermore, one desirous to rid himself of taxation remains free to renounce his allegiance to his polity and find one more suited to his desires.
3) The founding fathers of the United States may not have allowed for direct federal taxation of citizens, but they did allow for federal taxation of states proportional to the citizens within each state, thus ensuring that the state would collect taxes on its behalf when need be, and the founding fathers had no qualms about allowing states to tax their own citizens for whatever purposes they felt warranted it. Thus history shows that the view of the founders on taxation is not against tax itself, but rather against certain tax practices.
Q.E.D. Taxation is not a violation of one's rights, stems from our nature as humans, and is historically permissible.
Bertrand Russell
Stats: Born 1872 A.D. Died 1970 A.D. Notable for analytic philosophy, contributions to philosophy of language.
How it would go: Bertrand Russell v. The Same-sex marriage debate
SSM Opponent: You are an abomination before God!
SSM Proponent: You are a bigot!
Bertrand Russell (probably a bit hungover after a lively night at the Cambridge Moral Science Club): Everyone, just shut the hell up for a second and we can figure this out like adults!
Everyone: This is important! The other sides is (devolves into intense but unintelligible cacophony).
B: Do any of you even know the meanings of the words you are saying? Alright, I am going to flip a coin. If it is heads, I am going to start with the opponents of same-sex marriage, if it is tails, I will start with the other side.
Coin comes up tails (result of real-world coin toss).
B: Okay, why do you want same-sex marriage?
SSMP: Because homosexuals can be just as much in love as heterosexuals.
B: If we take that as a given, we are left to determine what love means and what its relation to marriage is.
SSMP: Love is an undefinable feeling. Marriage is about love, therefore if people can love they ought to have the right to marry.
B: Hold on a second. If love is undefinable, how do we know it even exists?
SSMP: We can see its effects. People do different things than they normally would if love is involved.
B: Assuming we accept that, which is a big assumption, why is marriage about love? Is that provable?
SSMP: People who are in love often marry. Hence it is a product of love.
B: Correlation does not equal causation. Many people who are in love don't marry, and many people who marry are not in love. The cause of marriage cannot be love as love is neither necessary nor sufficient to marriage. And now you are talking about rights, but have not defined what that is.
SSMP: A right is that which you are entitled to.
B: You are entitled to be married? That seems a little preposterous given that some people never marry even if they want to. A "right to marry" would be coupled with a responsibility for someone to find you a spouse, and no one has that.
SSMP: Alright, the right to try to marry. How about that.
B: Much better. Let's keep this precise. So you want everyone to have the right to try to marry. That seems reasonable enough. And why should people have this right?
SSMP: Because there is no reason not to.
B: Well that seems a little out of hand. The other side has yet to present their reasons. Are there any positive, falsifiable claims you can make for why people should have this right?
SSMP: Because society will be better off if people can marry.
B: Better off? How so?
SSMP: Society will benefit economically through a more stable populous.
B: We could define stuff all day, but I will let that stand as a passable premise for now. At least it can be shown to be true or false with enough time. Turning to the same-sex marriage opponents Now, why do you oppose this?
SSMO: Because God is against it!
B: Why did you have to invoke the big man this early in the morning?
SSMO: We live our lives based on God's dictates and he says no so we do too.
B: Have you ever actually heard him say this?
SSMO: He wrote it in the Bible.
B: But the Bible was written by people.
SSMO: With His help.
B: How do you know he helped?
SSMO: They said so.
B: I once knew a man who claimed to have written a book with the help of God.
SSMO: Blasphemy!
B: But I thought saying God helped you write a book was sufficient to win you over. What happened?
SSMO: God wrote one book and it is the Bible, the Bible says so.
B: I can see this won't get very far. You are going to have to convince me about this later. New question: if God selected people to write the Bible, he must have chosen them because they had some quality that distinguished them as best able to understand and transcribe the word of God, right?
SSMO: That makes sense.
B: But he did not choose any of you for this task, right?
SSMO: True.
B: So how do you know that you understand the text?
SSMO: It is pretty clear.
B: Clear to you perhaps. But you don't have whatever quality God thought it was important for Bible writers to have or else he would, assuming he is actually interested in having any of his words be accurate, have arranged the universe such that you had been a bible writer. As I have said before "a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
SSMO: Are you calling me stupid?
B: Not by comparison to a normal person, but you must be in comparison to godly omniscience.
SSMO: Compared to God, yes, everyone is stupid.
B: Even the people who wrote the Bible?
SSMO: Everyone.
B: So they could not possibly have accurately reported what God said because it went over their heads, and similarly you, who we have decided is not as good at understanding God as the writers were, would similarly have missed things, and so it is not unreasonable to conclude that your third hand account is not necessarily what you believe God intended.
SSMO: That all makes sense, but I still want to believe the way I was taught.
B: That's natural. If I had taught you skepticism from your earliest years, you would undoubtedly think my way was dogmatically correct. It is all psychology. Now before I go on... spying Wittgenstein out of the corner of his eye wielding a fire poker Wittgenstein, stop! What have I told you about threatening people with fire pokers? Well, I think we can call it a day.
So there it is. Three famous philosophers who manage to discuss things without resorting to shouting and violence. "But they didn't really accomplish anything!" you cry. Well, I ask, has our current climate of incivility done any better?
*Russell was present for the infamous "fire poker incident" at the Cambridge Moral Science Club, but it was his student, Wittgenstein who wielded the poker at Karl Popper, and it was Cambridge, so we will have to excuse them for misplacing their manners.
What all of these people had in common was a belief that the logical soundness, and not the volume, of an argument was the determining factor in what made it right. Yes, this created conflict, but only with those who realized that their dogmatic beliefs were not based on sound, intelligible principles.
What would they say about the current state of discourse in the United States? Well, I am going to take the opportunity to use my Bachelor of the Arts in philosophy and try to piece together what these philosophers might have said about American politics today. Please note that these conclusions are just hypothetical and only serve to illustrate what might happen if a select group of philosophers were to engage in discussion. These are not supposed to be viable political answers.
Socrates
Stats: Born c. 470 B.C. Died 399 B.C. Notable for being the FATHER OF WESTERN FREAKIN' PHILOSOPHY! Also, the Socratic Method.
Here's how it would go with Socrates v. The Entire Healthcare Debate
Healthcare Debate: Unintelligible Babble!
Socrates: Woah! Chill out. What's all the fuss?
Healthcare Reformer: We want to reform healthcare.
Socrates: Why?
H.R.: To make society better!
S.: How does reforming healthcare make society better?
H.R.: By making people more healthy!
S: Why is healthy better?
H.R.: People live longer, and that is better?
S: So you say that longer life is always better?
H.R.: Yes.
S.: Tell me, is someone who lives longer always more virtuous?
H.R.: No.
S: Do you think that longer life without virtue is better than a shorter life without virtue?
H.R.: No, but what about all of the virtuous people who will also live longer? Surely they should have healthcare so as to spread virtue through longer lives! They may be able to make the non-virtuous virtuous.
S: What happens to an apple when you leave it on the tree?
H.R.: It rots.
S: and a sword left in the rain unsheathed?
H.R.: It rusts.
S: So would you not agree that it is the nature of the physical world to corrupt the essence of that which resides in it too long?
H.R.: But what about wine? It gets better with age!
S.: For a time, but eventually the seal on the cask erodes and even the finest wine becomes undrinkable vinegar with time. Such it is with man. He is born a feeble and unformed child, ages into a virtuous citizen, and then begins, at least in body, to corrode into feebleness again. And just as an apple that has begun to rot may still be salvaged in part, it is not long before the corruption of one part corrupts the rest. So too a man who has become corrupt in body will soon be corrupt in mind and soul as well. Surely a society of corrupt men is not for the better.
Healthcare Reform Opponent: See, even Socrates thinks healthcare reform is stupid.
S: That's not exactly what I said. I just said it does not make society better.
H.R.O.: How is that different?
S: Why do you oppose reform?
H.R.O.: Because they are trying to destroy the best healthcare system in the world!
S: What does the good have to fear from the bad?
H.R.O.: The bad can corrupt the good. You said so yourself. An apple rots if part begins to rot.
S: Is an apple good?
H.R.O.: I like apples.
S: Is everything you like good? Do not most men have bad desires from time to time.
H.R.O.: Yeah. So what?
S: The apple is corruptible, but the apple is not itself good. The form of the good must be incorruptible as corruption begets wickedness, but can only do so if there is wickedness within, just as a short man cannot be made tall, or a blue flower cannot become red. The good must not have wickedness to be the good, hence the good is incorruptible and no harm can be done to it. Can the current healthcare system be corrupted?
H.R.O.: Well, if the socialist get there way it will be terrible!
S.: Then the current healthcare system cannot be good, right?
H.R.O.: But it is the best in the world!
S.: Just like the wine I mentioned earlier may be the best there is in this world, it does not mean it is perfect. If something is not perfect, it means there are flaws, and where flaws can be found they must be corrected, right?
H.R.O.: That seems reasonable.
S.: Then surely the flaws in healthcare must need correction and reform is a step toward making the best system closer to the ideal.
Everyone: But doesn't that mean we are both wrong?
S.: Yes. But that does not mean there isn't a right answer, just that you have not examined your assumptions enough to see what it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a trial to get to.
Aristotle
Stats: Born 384 B.C. Died 322 B.C. Notable for formal logic, reason, and the theory of causality.
How it would go: Aristotle v. Tax Protesters (In the form of a lecture)
The Proposition (presented by a tax protester who is not foaming at the mouth): One should not have to pay taxes as taxes are an imposition on one's natural liberty to associate or disassociate with society as one pleases. Our founding fathers knew this and banned the government from direct taxation. Modern tax laws therefore defy nature and tradition.
Analysis (presented by Aristotle): 1) Taxes are the primary means by which government secures the funds necessary to perform the functions that society has constituted it to do. 2) It is natural that this should occur. 3) Tradition has been misread to justify the proposition, but reality requires a different outcome.
1) Society expects certain things from its government,among them security, infrastructure to promote commerce, and the protections of law. None of these goals can be accomplished without money. Governments get money through taxation, ergo taxation is necessary to sustain government.
2) It is natural for people to want government. Although the proposition suggests that people have a natural right to choose to associate or disassociate from society as they see fit, it is inherent in the nature of the species that humans are political animals, needing the company of at least one other human to fulfill the basic biological function of procreation, which is the natural goal of all species. It makes sense, therefore that people would congregate in societies to increase the odds of finding mates, participating in the division of labor to increase the time which can be spent in leisure (i.e. mating) and securing the promise of society not to kill or harm that person, their mates, or their offspring. Even those of the lowest intellectual and social distinctions fear exile as the human being naturally gravitates toward society. Therefore, one who has the desire to remove himself from society is acting contrary to his nature and his right to this aberrant behavior must be considered a political right and not a natural right. As it is a political right, its extent may be bounded by the polity as a whole, hence the requirement of taxation, in so far as it limits the right to disassociate freely from society, is not a violation of natural rights. Furthermore, one desirous to rid himself of taxation remains free to renounce his allegiance to his polity and find one more suited to his desires.
3) The founding fathers of the United States may not have allowed for direct federal taxation of citizens, but they did allow for federal taxation of states proportional to the citizens within each state, thus ensuring that the state would collect taxes on its behalf when need be, and the founding fathers had no qualms about allowing states to tax their own citizens for whatever purposes they felt warranted it. Thus history shows that the view of the founders on taxation is not against tax itself, but rather against certain tax practices.
Q.E.D. Taxation is not a violation of one's rights, stems from our nature as humans, and is historically permissible.
Bertrand Russell
Stats: Born 1872 A.D. Died 1970 A.D. Notable for analytic philosophy, contributions to philosophy of language.
How it would go: Bertrand Russell v. The Same-sex marriage debate
SSM Opponent: You are an abomination before God!
SSM Proponent: You are a bigot!
Bertrand Russell (probably a bit hungover after a lively night at the Cambridge Moral Science Club): Everyone, just shut the hell up for a second and we can figure this out like adults!
Everyone: This is important! The other sides is (devolves into intense but unintelligible cacophony).
B: Do any of you even know the meanings of the words you are saying? Alright, I am going to flip a coin. If it is heads, I am going to start with the opponents of same-sex marriage, if it is tails, I will start with the other side.
Coin comes up tails (result of real-world coin toss).
B: Okay, why do you want same-sex marriage?
SSMP: Because homosexuals can be just as much in love as heterosexuals.
B: If we take that as a given, we are left to determine what love means and what its relation to marriage is.
SSMP: Love is an undefinable feeling. Marriage is about love, therefore if people can love they ought to have the right to marry.
B: Hold on a second. If love is undefinable, how do we know it even exists?
SSMP: We can see its effects. People do different things than they normally would if love is involved.
B: Assuming we accept that, which is a big assumption, why is marriage about love? Is that provable?
SSMP: People who are in love often marry. Hence it is a product of love.
B: Correlation does not equal causation. Many people who are in love don't marry, and many people who marry are not in love. The cause of marriage cannot be love as love is neither necessary nor sufficient to marriage. And now you are talking about rights, but have not defined what that is.
SSMP: A right is that which you are entitled to.
B: You are entitled to be married? That seems a little preposterous given that some people never marry even if they want to. A "right to marry" would be coupled with a responsibility for someone to find you a spouse, and no one has that.
SSMP: Alright, the right to try to marry. How about that.
B: Much better. Let's keep this precise. So you want everyone to have the right to try to marry. That seems reasonable enough. And why should people have this right?
SSMP: Because there is no reason not to.
B: Well that seems a little out of hand. The other side has yet to present their reasons. Are there any positive, falsifiable claims you can make for why people should have this right?
SSMP: Because society will be better off if people can marry.
B: Better off? How so?
SSMP: Society will benefit economically through a more stable populous.
B: We could define stuff all day, but I will let that stand as a passable premise for now. At least it can be shown to be true or false with enough time. Turning to the same-sex marriage opponents Now, why do you oppose this?
SSMO: Because God is against it!
B: Why did you have to invoke the big man this early in the morning?
SSMO: We live our lives based on God's dictates and he says no so we do too.
B: Have you ever actually heard him say this?
SSMO: He wrote it in the Bible.
B: But the Bible was written by people.
SSMO: With His help.
B: How do you know he helped?
SSMO: They said so.
B: I once knew a man who claimed to have written a book with the help of God.
SSMO: Blasphemy!
B: But I thought saying God helped you write a book was sufficient to win you over. What happened?
SSMO: God wrote one book and it is the Bible, the Bible says so.
B: I can see this won't get very far. You are going to have to convince me about this later. New question: if God selected people to write the Bible, he must have chosen them because they had some quality that distinguished them as best able to understand and transcribe the word of God, right?
SSMO: That makes sense.
B: But he did not choose any of you for this task, right?
SSMO: True.
B: So how do you know that you understand the text?
SSMO: It is pretty clear.
B: Clear to you perhaps. But you don't have whatever quality God thought it was important for Bible writers to have or else he would, assuming he is actually interested in having any of his words be accurate, have arranged the universe such that you had been a bible writer. As I have said before "a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
SSMO: Are you calling me stupid?
B: Not by comparison to a normal person, but you must be in comparison to godly omniscience.
SSMO: Compared to God, yes, everyone is stupid.
B: Even the people who wrote the Bible?
SSMO: Everyone.
B: So they could not possibly have accurately reported what God said because it went over their heads, and similarly you, who we have decided is not as good at understanding God as the writers were, would similarly have missed things, and so it is not unreasonable to conclude that your third hand account is not necessarily what you believe God intended.
SSMO: That all makes sense, but I still want to believe the way I was taught.
B: That's natural. If I had taught you skepticism from your earliest years, you would undoubtedly think my way was dogmatically correct. It is all psychology. Now before I go on... spying Wittgenstein out of the corner of his eye wielding a fire poker Wittgenstein, stop! What have I told you about threatening people with fire pokers? Well, I think we can call it a day.
So there it is. Three famous philosophers who manage to discuss things without resorting to shouting and violence. "But they didn't really accomplish anything!" you cry. Well, I ask, has our current climate of incivility done any better?
*Russell was present for the infamous "fire poker incident" at the Cambridge Moral Science Club, but it was his student, Wittgenstein who wielded the poker at Karl Popper, and it was Cambridge, so we will have to excuse them for misplacing their manners.