Rhetoric via views you disagree with

Here's a question on the ethics of rhetoric, i.e., the art of persuasion. In your rhetoric, if it's effective, should you include ideas you disagree with? For instance, if you're talking to a Christian, should you use Christian rhetoric to support your view? If you're talking to Socialist, should you use Socialist rhetoric?

I think it'd be dishonest to use their rhetoric without first disclosing that it's not yours. So let's not dwell on that unless someone disagree with me here.

I guess I'm wondering whether, after the disclosure, it's ethically problematic to argue via their views? Maybe it placates or kowtows, entrenches them further, or appears to condone their view? Maybe it gives unacceptable short shrift to your view or to their capacity to be persuaded by your view? Maybe it's too pragmatic?

Interested in your thoughts...

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 8/04, 10:14am)

Post 1

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 11:10am

If you mean pretending to agree when you don't, that's dishonest. Taking people's premises and pointing out their inconsistencies is a different tactic altogether. For example you might point out to a welfare statist who says we have a duty to help the poor that he must want to do away with the government schools monopoly, Kelo-style eminent domain or occupational licensing. Besides being rhetorically effective it's great fun.

Post 2

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 11:51am

Well, Deirdre McCloskey's "The Bourgeois Virtues - Ethics for an Age of Commerce" uses the 'christian/liberal' notions of virtues and attempts to fashion a defense of ethical trading... isn't that much the same thing?

[she seems to abhor Rand's atheistic 'barrenness of soul' view of ethics and virtues]

Post 3

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 12:45pm

Most often, the supporting ideas are more fundamental than the issue under discussion. Adopting more fundamental ideas for rhetorical purposes would be dishonest, if not announced, and announcing differences puts you into different arguments and reduces the efficiency. But the worst problem is that you are implicitly conceding the more fundamental ideas.

Better to seek an ideological root idea that you and your opponent share and build from there to show that your positions is consistent with that root and their's isn't - that approach is very powerful and obviously gives Objectivists an advantage :-)

Post 4

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 2:52pm

I think it'd be dishonest to use their rhetoric without first disclosing that it's not yours. So let's not dwell on that unless someone disagree with me here.

What would Socrates say? I don't think it's dishonest to use the rhetoric in order to spin it.

Post 5

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 4:10pm

Teresa, what I was thinking of was where someone might adopt an altruistic standard if, in some particular context, it would sustain a political position. That would be dishonest for a rational egoist to do.

Post 6

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 4:26pm

Once again, the issue is a floating moral abstraction. Objectivism doesn't work this way. Objectivism doesn't posit a blanket command like thou shalt not lie, or thou shalt not use the enemy's rhetoric against him. Without a specific example, it's absurd to expect a yes or no answer.

In most political situations, the object is to win, not to educate your opponent. If you can do this effectively by using a statist's or a theocrat's own arguments against him, then do so. Politics is war by other means. The point in any specific conflict is to win. Of course it is nice if you can do this using reason. But Objectivism doesn't advocate epistemological altruism. The point of politics is not to lose on principle.

Post 7

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 5:34pm

Ted,

You said, "Objectivism doesn't posit a blanket command like thou shalt not lie..."

I disagree. Objectivism does say that telling a lie is immoral and it only specifies that the context exclude situations where rights violations exist.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud�that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee�that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling�that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others." Galt's Speech

It also is not a practical approach to politics - to base any "wins" on the quicksand of a lie. And the lie becomes, as I mentioned, an implicit support of a false premise.

And, it is harmful to self-esteem.

Post 8

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 6:59pm

Where did I say that it is or is not always advisable to lie? There's little point in taking a rationalist a priori in favor of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when in certain circumstances it is self-defeating, and not even at issue. For example, if it comes out two days before the election that Al Gore evicted his 96 year old retired black nanny so he could cut down her stand of redwoods destroying the nest of the last of the spotted owls, you play it up for all its worth, and you don't preface your attacks with the disclaimer that if it were you you would have made her homeless and cut down the grove years before. And of course if one is writing an essay for a political journal, then that's something entirely different.

Do please read exactly what I said, and pay attention to the qualifiers. They are well chosen. Here it is with italics to make it clearer:

In most political situations, [i.e., elections and votes] the object is to win, not to educate your opponent. If you can do this effectively by using a statist's or a theocrat's own arguments against him, then do so. [Note this does not rule out making your own position explicit if this is helpful.] Politics is war by other means. The point in any specific conflict is to win. [Note I said conflict, such as a Congressional vote, not calm rational debate on policy in an academic setting.] Of course it is nice if you can do this using reason. But Objectivism doesn't advocate epistemological altruism. [I could quote Rand here on accepting welfare just as easily as quoting Galt about lying, but it would be equally beside the point.] The point of politics is not to lose on principle.

It is the faithful who quote scripture and make commandments about floating moral abstractions. Objectivism doesn't work this way. Objectivism doesn't posit a blanket command like "thou shalt not lie," or "thou shalt not use the enemy's rhetoric against him." Just as I showed in the sexuality debate, without a specific, concrete example, it's absurd to expect a yes or no answer.

Post 9

Monday, August 3, 2009 - 7:52pm

Ted,

Your reply to my post is bizarre. You start by saying, "Where did I say that it is or is not always advisable to lie? What does that have to do with anything? Certainly nothing in my post.
-------------

You said, "Objectivism doesn't posit a blanket command like thou shalt not lie..." I said, "I disagree" and then I provided a quote from Galt's speech.

This entire position of yours that Objectivism does not permit valid moral judgments without a specific, concrete example is absurd. Moral judgments require a context - and that context may be an entire category of actions not a specific, concrete action.

Post 10

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 9:40am

In most political situations, the object is to win, not to educate your opponent. If you can do this effectively by using a statist's or a theocrat's own arguments against him, then do so. Politics is war by other means. The point in any specific conflict is to win. Of course it is nice if you can do this using reason. But Objectivism doesn't advocate epistemological altruism. The point of politics is not to lose on principle.

The danger in using an opponent's false premises against him in order to "win" is that it may turn out to be self-defeating in the long run -- in other words, a pyrrhic victory. Objectivism is concerned with long-term success, which depends on advocating the right principles for the right reasons. That doesn't mean that you have to defend every policy by always referring to fundamentals, but it does mean that pretending to support your ideas by reference to Christian dogma because it happens to make Christian conservatives more receptive to your views will simply delay the long-term success of Objectivism. Also, it could be seized upon by your opponents and used against you.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out contradictions or hypocrisy in your opponent's position, of course, such as Al Gore's extravagant consumption of energy despite his public injunctions to economize. What this kind of expose can do is reveal a candidate's insincerity, which is a good reason for rejecting him as a trustworthy political leader.

- Bill

Post 11

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 9:51am

That is why am having such a problem wading my way thru McClockey's book about the virtue of capitalism...

Post 12

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 10:34am

"This entire position of yours that Objectivism does not permit valid moral judgments without a specific, concrete example is absurd. Moral judgments require a context - and that context may be an entire category of actions not a specific, concrete action."

I am sorry, Steve, but what part of "it depends on the situation" don't you understand? Was my statement that in specific short term conflicts like votes and elections what matters is winning, not education, unclear? Or did you not understand me when I said that in academic settings and the like when one wants people to understand principles one must be explicit with one's premises?

My position is not that one cannot make moral statements without specific examples. My position is that without specifics, you are often limited to "it depends." Objectivism holds that the good for an individual exists in relation to his nature, and that one should not sacrifice a lesser for a higher value. Those are absolute statements. But even then, you have to specify what an individual's nature is, or what his specific values are in order to go further. Just as every meaningful concept must be traceable to its perceptual roots, every meaningful moral judgment must be traceable to some specific context.

As a concrete exercise for the reader, I will ask, what is the Objectivist position on purchasing items such as musical recordings for which a communist entity such as the Soviet government owns the sole rights and from which it profits? Can one morally make such a purchase, or can't one? Surely it would be "absurd" to hold that one can't make that judgment without specifics, wouldn't it?

Post 13

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 11:16am

Ted,

If it helps, you can rephrase my inquiry as: Under what circumstances is it morally acceptable for your rhetoric to incorporate ideas with which you disagree?

Jordan

Post 14

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 12:57pm

Ted,

In post #6 you said, "Objectivism doesn't posit a blanket command like thou shalt not lie..." And then, "Without a specific example, it's absurd to expect a yes or no answer."

Then in post #8 you said, "Just as I showed in the sexuality debate, without a specific, concrete example, it's absurd to expect a yes or no answer."

But in post #12 you said, "My position is not that one cannot make moral statements without specific examples." [my emphasis]

WTF?

Post 15

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - 4:12pm