Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Applying Logic to LD
by George H. Smith
Values
permeate all aspects of our lives and actions. Human action
is motivated by a desire to acquire something we don't presently
have. It involves moving from a less satisfactory state of
affairs to a more satisfactory state of affairs. If human
beings were completely satisfied there would be no reason
to act at all. We evaluate some things as more desirable than
others; and this subjective process of valuation determines
which actions we take.
Whether
it is choosing which flavor of ice cream to buy or which job
to take, whether our choice involves only ourself or other
persons, all decisions &endash; from the most trivial to the
most significant &endash; entail value judgments.
Given
the millions of individuals in a society, the value judgments
of one person frequently conflict with the value judgments
of another person. I value my car, but so does the car thief;
and his attempt to steal my car conflicts with my effort to
protect my property. In a political context, the value that
some people place on economic equality conflicts with the
value that other people place on economic liberty. The number
of such conflicts, real or potential, is virtually unlimited.
We see,
therefore, that value "debates" occur every day, even if in
an informal, implicit fashion. Perhaps the most important
question concerning these "debates" is: Can they be resolved
rationally? Is there a "right" or "wrong" in disagreements
over values? Consider the example of ice cream flavors. If
I like vanilla while my neighbor prefers strawberry, is one
of us correct and the other in error? In matters of taste
such as this, most people agree that there is no right or
wrong. It is simply a matter of personal preference.
But now
consider the car thief who values my car and attempts to steal
it. Is this, like the example of ice cream, merely a question
of subjective preference with no resolution? Is the thief's
desire to take my car on an equal footing with my desire to
keep it? Is this a brute clash of wills with no right or wrong?
Or do I have a "right" to the car in some sense, which makes
my action (resisting the thief) morally correct? If so, how
can such a claim be justified rationally?
This plunges
us headlong into the realm of moral values. If, as most people
would agree, car theft involves an issue of right and wrong
(thus distinguishing it from the ice cream example), then
we are dealing, not just with subjective values, but with
moral values that are in some sense objective. It is by applying
moral principles that we ascertain whose subjective values
are to be given priority.
Value
Debating
All argument
involves giving reasons; value debating consists of giving
reasons why one value judgment is superior to another value
judgment. This, in turn, presupposes that the value judgments
under consideration are more than subjective preferences (like
ice cream flavors). Imagine the following debate topic: "resolved:
Vanilla ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream." What
would be the point of this debate? Indeed, would it even make
sense? What does "better" mean when applied to ice cream flavors?
Better for whom?
Now consider
the following (hypothetical) debate topic: "Resolved: The
United States should not provide military aid to governments
which violate human rights."
This topic,
and many like it, involve value judgments. In this respect
it resembles the ice cream topic. But, unlike ice cream flavors,
this topic is debatable. Reasons can be given, pro or con,
and some reasons are better than others. This means that there
are standards of value by which position you or I happen to
prefer, but which of our positions is more justified and defensible.
Moral
Argument
Your skill
value debating will be greatly enhanced if you know how to
analyze moral arguments. Most moral arguments can be reduced
to a basic pattern known as the deductive syllogism. Understanding
this simple logical device will enable you to build a stronger
case, as well as criticize your opponent more effectively.
The first
thing to note about moral propositions (e.g., "one should
not steal") is that they are normative in character. By this
we mean that all moral propositions contain a word like "ought,"
"should," or "must." This word is not always explicit; it
may be lurking beneath the surface. For instance, there is
no "ought" word in, "Stealing is wrong." But a closer look
reveals that a word like "ought" is implied by the word "wrong."
After all what does "wrong" mean if not, "That which one ought
(or should, or must) not do."
Whenever
you (or your opponent) defends a position that contains a
moral value judgment (an "ought" judgment), you will find
it helpful to analyze the foundation of this judgment. This
is where the deductive syllogism comes in handy. Here is a
famous example of a deductive syllogism:
Major
Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor
Premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
We cannot
analyze the logic of this syllogism here (you may wish to
consult an introductory text on logic), but a little bit of
common sense reveals that there is no information contained
in the conclusion that is not contained in the two premises
(major and minor). When the conclusion follows necessarily
from the premises in this way, the argument is said to be
valid.
Moral
arguments can be analyzed in a similar fashion. Consider this
statement: "Military conscription is immoral." This may be
viewed as the conclusion of a deductive syllogism, such as
the following:
Major
Premise: Involuntary servitude (slavery) is immoral.
Minor
Premise: Military conscription is a form of involuntary servitude.
Conclusion:
Therefore, military conscription is immoral.
Notice
the difference between the major premise and the minor premise.
The major premise is a value judgment; the minor premise is
a description involving no value judgment. (This does not
necessarily mean that it is an accurate description &endash;
its truth or falsehood is irrelevant here.) The conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises. In other words, if
the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as
well.
This suggests
a method with which you can (a) build your own case; and (b)
criticize the case of your opponent. Let us consider each
of these in turn.
Building
a Moral Argument
As indicated
in the previous discussion, your moral argument will have
two basic elements: the general moral principle (major premise)
on which you base your case; and the particular descriptive
statement (minor premise) which shows that your conclusion
follows necessarily from the moral principle.
Of these
two elements, the general moral principle is by far the most
difficult to defend. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that you
will have the time to defend it adequately in the limited
time available to you. Because of this, you should select
a major premise that is fairly uncontroversial and that will
be accepted by the judges and perhaps even by your opponent.
Few people will take issue with the claim that slavery is
wrong, or that theft is wrong. If, then, you can show that
your conclusion follows from such claims, the moral underpinning
of your argument will rest on secure foundations.
Your basic
strategy here is to show that your conclusion follows necessarily
from a well-established moral principle. This can be a powerful
debating tool and often yields surprising results. Suppose
you wish to defend the radical statement, "Taxation is theft
and should be abolished." You could argue this in the following
way:
Major
Premise: Theft is the appropriation of property without the
owner's consent.
Minor
Premise: Taxes require the appropriation of property without
the owner's consent.
Conclusion:
Therefore, taxes are theft.
With this
established, you can then proceed to moral argument:
Major
Premise: Theft should be abolished
Major
Premise: Taxes are theft.
Conclusion:
Therefore, taxes should be abolished.
From a
simple definition of theft in the first syllogism, you have
arrived at a surprising conclusion. Your opponent would be
unlikely to attack either major premise. Instead he would
be forced to question your minor premises &endash; for example,
by maintaining that the taxpayer is not the true "owner" of
his money, or that taxation is really based on consent.
Criticizing
a Moral Argument
Understanding
the role of the syllogism in moral argument provides an effective
analytic device in criticizing your opponent's argument. Your
opponent may be unaware of the implications of his own arguments;
and by identifying some unacceptable implications, you can
do much to damage his case.
This is
especially true of utilitarian arguments. Utilitarianism is
a moral theory which holds that the "good" consists of the
"greatest good for the greatest number," "the greatest happiness
for the greatest number," or some similar standard. Many people
rely implicitly on utilitarian standards in their value arguments...such
as when they contend that a certain policy should be undertaken
(usually by the government) because it would benefit the majority
of people. This reasoning, if spelled out explicitly, would
look something like this:
Major
Premise: The government should do whatever benefits the majority
of people (the greatest good for the greatest number).
Minor
Premise: X (the policy in question) would benefit the majority
of people.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the government should do X.
Many debaters,
in opposing policy X, would focus on the minor premise. They
would argue that the policy does not, in fact, benefit the
majority. This response, however, is not the most effective
critique. Far more devastating is to zero in on the major
premise and call attention to its unsavory implications. Is
there no limit whatever to what may be done in the name of
"greatest good for the greatest number"? What if a small,
unpopular religious sect offends the religious sensibilities
of the majority, who would be "better off" if the sect were
outlawed? What about a newspaper or magazine that the majority
finds unacceptable? Who, moreover, is to judge what constitutes
the "greatest good for the greatest number"?
The problems
confronting a utilitarian standard in ethics are legion. Your
opponent is unlikely to adopt this explicitly as a moral principle;
he probably hopes to smuggle it in his argument without identifying
it openly. Your strategy is to show that utilitarianism is
the major premise on which his case rests. Then, by plugging
in alternative minor premises (e.g., "The suppression of the
National Enquirer would achieve the greatest good for the
greatest number"), you can draw implications from his own
premise that even he would be unlikely to accept.
Arguments
from Authority
Conventional
debates over policy resolutions frequently include quotations,
statistics, opinions, and so forth culled from various authorities.
In value debating, such appeals to authority are highly suspect
and should be used with great caution, if at all. If your
opponent relies on an appeal to authority, you should be able
to weaken his case without much trouble.
It is
important to understand when an appeal to authority is permissible
and when it is not. The basic rule is this: If a debate involves
specialized information &endash; informaton that the average
layman lacks &endash; then the opinion of specialists may
be introduced to establish facts that cannot otherwise be
verified. If a policy debate concerns pollution, for instance,
then the conclusions of research scientists about the effects
of pollution may be relevant.
But the
situation is different in value debating. There are no "authorities"
in the realm of morality. Moral theory is not based on specialized
information inaccessible to the average person. The philosopher
who writes books on value theory is not privy to specialized
facts, as may be the case with a scientist engaged in laboratory
experiments. The philosopher has probably thought more about
moral issues than the average person, but his reasoning is
based on ordinary facts &endash; the kind of observations
about human beings that any person can make. Therefore, to
quote (say) Plato or Aristotle in support of a value statement
is to make a very weak argument. The conclusions of philosophers
are far less significant than the reasons and arguments offered
in defense of those conclusions.
Here again
it helps to know the syllogistic structure underlying value
arguments. It is primarily in the major premise &endash; the
general value principle on which the argument depends &endash;
that an appeal to authority is invalid. That a certain philosopher
regards a moral principle as correct means little. You can
point this out easily, if your opponent resorts to an appeal
to authority. Great philosophers have defended all kinds of
views that are considered repugnant today. Plato and Aristotle,
for example, defended the institution of slavery. This obviously
does not mean that slavery is morally correct.
Another,
somewhat disguised, appeal to authority consists of an appeal
to the "majority," as expressed in democratic election. That
the majority considers something moral or desirable proves
nothing. The "majority" consists of individuals, and these
individuals are no more fallible than the individuals comprising
the minority. Never permit your opponent to obscure the essential
issues in a value debate by resorting to these invalid tactics.
There is no substitute for a logical, well reasoned case.
One person constitutes a majority, if that one person is right.
Arguments
from Rights
We have
discussed briefly the weakness of moral arguments based on
utilitarianism and appeals to authority. (This does not mean
that these approaches can never play a role in value debates
&endash; only that they should not constitute the foundation
of your case.) In searching for a major premise that will
support your argument, you will probably find that one based
on natural rights is the most effective and immune from attack.
What do
philosophers mean by "natural rights"? Basically, a "right"
is an enforceable claim that one person has against another
person. Rights always entail corresponding duties. Thus, if
I have a right to X (say, my car), then other persons have
a duty not to interfere (through force or the threat of force)
with my use of X &endash; provided, of course, that I do not
violate the equal rights of other people. If I am the rightful
owner of my car, then I have a right to it, and the car thief
commits an unjust act when he attempts to steal it from me.
One may
visualize the function of rights in moral theory by imagining
an invisible moral barrier surrounding every person. Rights
function as a protective shield, beyond which others may not
transgress without committing an unjust act. Most of the great
moral crusades throughout history have rested on some version
of rights. The movement against slavery in antebellum America,
for example, was based on every person's right of "self-ownership."
Every person, the anti-slavery theorists argued, has a natural
right to his own body, mind, labor, and the fruits of one's
labor. Slavery was thus viewed as theft on a gigantic scale.
Slaveholders were condemned as "manstealers" because they
"stole" from the slave that which was properly his own &endash;
moral jurisdiction over his body and labor.
Arguments
of this kind can be extremely effective. Of course, you will
not be debating the subject of slavery; but just as the principle
of "self-ownership" served as the major premise in the argument
against slavery, so, when combined with a different minor
premise, it can serve as the foundation in a variety of value
debates.
Basing
your major premise on a natural right works especially well
when, as in a debate, your time is limited, and you cannot
expect to justify your position fully. As previously mentioned,
few people will openly deny a right like "self-ownership,"
or a right to "freedom of conscience." (If your opponent does
deny these, you can point out that he is unable to offer a
viable argument against slavery or religious persecution.)
It is because rights like these are firmly embedded in the
American tradition and find widespread acceptance that a value
argument based on rights is so powerful. Formulating your
major premise in terms of rights is likely to make the foundation
of your argument (the major premise) unassailable. Your opponent
will have no choice but to attack your minor premise, i.e.,
the specific application of the rights principle to the topic
of debate. This is where your skill as a debater will be tested,
but at least you have the considerable advantage of a well
thought out moral premise. This is the first step in making
your value argument fundamentally sound.
George
H. Smith is a philosopher and scholar of intellectual history.
He is the General Editor of the Knowledge Products series
"The World's Great Political Thinkers."
|
A
Foundation for Economic Education Website
30
South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 10533
Questions,
Comments, Suggestions? Email: Debate@fee.org
Main
Website: www.fee.org
|
|
