In class earlier this week we were talking about the importance of understanding what's actually at issue in a debate before trying to analyze the arguments you encounter. This is especially important when assessing arguments presented through the mass media on issues that are ideologically contentious.
A good example is the debate over gun control laws. Those in favor of tougher gun control legislation are often puzzled by the degree of resistance these proposals receive from gun rights advocates. When you encounter this kind of resistance it's often a sign that there are deeper issues that aren't being addressed.
John Stewart's recent review of the gun control debate illustrates the importance of pushing an issue to uncover what's really motivating a debate. If you dig a little you see that the resistance isn't over what policies will best reduce gun violence, or how to interpret the Second Amendment. The resistance -- the "Alex Jones"-level of resistance -- is rooted in fear of government power and control. The issue is whether (1) it's reasonable to think that the US government poses a serious threat to its citizens, and (2) whether private gun ownership has an important role to play in mitigating or neutralizing this threat.
A good example is the debate over gun control laws. Those in favor of tougher gun control legislation are often puzzled by the degree of resistance these proposals receive from gun rights advocates. When you encounter this kind of resistance it's often a sign that there are deeper issues that aren't being addressed.
John Stewart's recent review of the gun control debate illustrates the importance of pushing an issue to uncover what's really motivating a debate. If you dig a little you see that the resistance isn't over what policies will best reduce gun violence, or how to interpret the Second Amendment. The resistance -- the "Alex Jones"-level of resistance -- is rooted in fear of government power and control. The issue is whether (1) it's reasonable to think that the US government poses a serious threat to its citizens, and (2) whether private gun ownership has an important role to play in mitigating or neutralizing this threat.
I'm not interested in taking sides on this question here (if you're interested in my thoughts on conspiracy theories check out podcast episodes 16, 17 and 18). The point I want to make is if you want to understand the gun control debate in the United States, you need to understand the important role that fear of government (and related "elites") plays in the minds of a significant proportion of the gun rights constituency. If the debate doesn't address this issue then there's little hope of moving this constituency.
But notice that this question is almost NEVER addressed in mainstream media discussions on gun control. By and large the "government poses a serious and imminent threat to civil liberties" position is either ignored, ridiculed or dismissed as irrational paranoia. I confess I can't ever recall a serious discussion of this question in a mainstream media source.
The problem is broader than just this issue. Consider the abortion rights debate. House Speaker John Boehner recently declared his commitment to "help make abortion a relic of the past". The public debate centers on whether a woman's right to choose should trump either the rights of the unborn, or the state's right to protect all forms of human life.
But the ACTUAL ISSUE that motivates this debate is more fundamental. The issue (of course) is whether a divinely created soul becomes bound to the fetus at the moment of conception, and thereby conferring upon it the moral standing of a human being with a moral right to life. THAT'S the belief that motivates the vast majority of pro-life advocates. But can you recall any time THIS question was EVER raised and discussed in a mainstream presentation of the abortion rights issue? I can't. But then why expect there to be any substantial progress on the abortion rights debate if the central motivating belief of the pro-life side is never addressed?
My students tell me that it's unrealistic to expect these sorts of questions to be addressed in public media, for two reasons. One, these are matters of personal conviction or faith, and so are not open to rational debate. And two, public, political debate shouldn't be based on personal religious or ethical beliefs, it should be based on shared political values of individual rights and liberties, the common good, etc.
The first point is simply untrue. Rational debate over moral and religious beliefs has been part of the Western tradition since the Greeks. The problem isn't that these issues can't be debated, but that most people are ignorant of the relevant intellectual history (i.e. the traditions of philosophy and theology that address these questions), and so they haven't a clue HOW to debate the question. The same point applies to the issue of whether government poses a serious threat to individual liberty. This is an historical and socio-political issue that can be debated, but most people are ignorant of the relevant history and arguments and wouldn't know where to start if asked to defend their views.
The second point is different. It expresses the principle of "liberal neutrality" that is widely viewed as an important feature of contemporary liberal political thought. The problem is that if we restrict public debate in this way then we risk misrepresenting or ignoring the arguments that are ACTUALLY motivating our political beliefs. If this is what liberal neutrality requires, then so much the worse for liberal neutrality, I think.
From a critical thinking perspective the moral of this discussion is clear. To engage in critical debate over issues like gun rights or abortion you need to address the core motivating issues, and that means we need to dig deeper to find out what these issues really are (certainly deeper than what we're given in popular media accounts of these debates).
The moral for political discourse is also clear, to me at least. I think a political philosophy that honors critical thinking should encourage public debate that engages the philosophical, ethical and religious issues that actually motivate the public's beliefs and actions. Unfortunately, our current political and medial culture seems to discourage such debate.
But notice that this question is almost NEVER addressed in mainstream media discussions on gun control. By and large the "government poses a serious and imminent threat to civil liberties" position is either ignored, ridiculed or dismissed as irrational paranoia. I confess I can't ever recall a serious discussion of this question in a mainstream media source.
The problem is broader than just this issue. Consider the abortion rights debate. House Speaker John Boehner recently declared his commitment to "help make abortion a relic of the past". The public debate centers on whether a woman's right to choose should trump either the rights of the unborn, or the state's right to protect all forms of human life.
But the ACTUAL ISSUE that motivates this debate is more fundamental. The issue (of course) is whether a divinely created soul becomes bound to the fetus at the moment of conception, and thereby conferring upon it the moral standing of a human being with a moral right to life. THAT'S the belief that motivates the vast majority of pro-life advocates. But can you recall any time THIS question was EVER raised and discussed in a mainstream presentation of the abortion rights issue? I can't. But then why expect there to be any substantial progress on the abortion rights debate if the central motivating belief of the pro-life side is never addressed?
My students tell me that it's unrealistic to expect these sorts of questions to be addressed in public media, for two reasons. One, these are matters of personal conviction or faith, and so are not open to rational debate. And two, public, political debate shouldn't be based on personal religious or ethical beliefs, it should be based on shared political values of individual rights and liberties, the common good, etc.
The first point is simply untrue. Rational debate over moral and religious beliefs has been part of the Western tradition since the Greeks. The problem isn't that these issues can't be debated, but that most people are ignorant of the relevant intellectual history (i.e. the traditions of philosophy and theology that address these questions), and so they haven't a clue HOW to debate the question. The same point applies to the issue of whether government poses a serious threat to individual liberty. This is an historical and socio-political issue that can be debated, but most people are ignorant of the relevant history and arguments and wouldn't know where to start if asked to defend their views.
The second point is different. It expresses the principle of "liberal neutrality" that is widely viewed as an important feature of contemporary liberal political thought. The problem is that if we restrict public debate in this way then we risk misrepresenting or ignoring the arguments that are ACTUALLY motivating our political beliefs. If this is what liberal neutrality requires, then so much the worse for liberal neutrality, I think.
From a critical thinking perspective the moral of this discussion is clear. To engage in critical debate over issues like gun rights or abortion you need to address the core motivating issues, and that means we need to dig deeper to find out what these issues really are (certainly deeper than what we're given in popular media accounts of these debates).
The moral for political discourse is also clear, to me at least. I think a political philosophy that honors critical thinking should encourage public debate that engages the philosophical, ethical and religious issues that actually motivate the public's beliefs and actions. Unfortunately, our current political and medial culture seems to discourage such debate.
