Canada Closed for Debate 4: What to Do About Bad Arguments

This is the fourth and final instalment of the Canada Closed for Debate series on bad arguments in the Canadian public sphere. Read the first part on topic laundering, the second part on reductio-ad-villainum, and the third part on carrying a concealed motive to get caught up.   

Identifying and listing bad arguments has its uses but how does one dispel them? How does one create a political culture that is hostile to dishonest, manipulative arguments? I doubt that an appeal to reason will produce much effect. I have no easy answers but one thing is clear: bitter herbs are needed. 

The classicist E.R. Dodds made a distinction between Guilt societies and Shame societies in his work The Greeks and The Irrational (1951). In a guilt-based society we feel bad (guilty) when we have done wrong. In a shame-based society we feel bad (ashamed) when we appear inadequate.

 This distinction goes some way in explaining the difference between the behaviour of private citizens and our political and commercial leaders. I believe that most Canadians outside the public eye live with a guilt-based ethics, whereas those who are in the political limelight seem to have a shame-based ethics.

Feeling guilty depends upon one’s conscience. Feeling ashamed depends upon getting caught.

[view:in_this_series=block_1] So long as a political player does not appear foolish in the public eye, they will not feel ashamed. It is even doubtful they would feel guilty about making bad arguments given it's 'all part of the job.’

In this void of conscience perhaps one must harness shame towards good ends.

A political career lives and dies in appearances. It seems to be an everlasting truth that political success depends more on appearance than on reality. But what exactly makes for good appearances is not very stable. It can change.

What if we found some way to make bad arguments look bad? What if our public leaders felt ashamed when they are caught making a bad argument? We Canadians get upset if we find out an MP has been abusing the old expense account – how much more upset should we be when they abuse our trust?

Political leaders and captains of industry fear appearing foolish more than they fear being deceptive. For that reason it may take little more than ridiculing bad arguments to change the political climate. Satire has long been a friend to reasonableness.

I encourage Canadians to discuss arguments made by our leaders to see if they are ignoring critiques, switching topics, vilifying opposing arguments, or hiding their real intentions. I encourage Canadians to write more letters and e-mails to their leaders that begin with “You ought to feel ashamed.” I encourage Canadians to find the humour in sophistry – there is great pleasure in making fun of a political animal who speaks in sound-bites and argues poorly.

A bad argument is like diner coffee: it is watery, opaque, acrid, and we all drink from the same carafe.

Although I have drawn my examples in the previous posts from Conservative politicians and the Ethical Oil campaign, bad arguments do not recognize political allegiances.

The best way to protect an open discourse is to value well-founded, honest arguments above ones that agree with our tastes. Ultimately that is how bad arguments have been allowed to thrive in our political climate: they are constructed to appeal to our taste and not our reason. It is now time for some accountability to enter the game.

Image Credit: The Greeks and The Irrational, 1951 book cover.