In today's episode of the CATO Institute's Daily Podcast, Caleb Brown interviewed independent scholar and economist Arnold Kling about being charitable to your opponents' views. They began with an introduction to the new book by Jason Brennan entitled Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know.
Don't Distort Others' Views
Dr. Kling asserts that in his new book, Prof. Brennan puts a lot of focus on the uncharitable manner in which libertarians are often portrayed by others (namely conservatives and progressives). While Kling agrees that progressives often suggest ideas like libertarians just wanting people to starve and conservatives make claims that they are undermining civilization, he has a criticism as well. He makes the point that Brennan (and other libertarians) is guilty of the same infractions when talking about others.
How might we refer to others' viewpoints without putting an intentionally negative spin on them? It could be said that conservatives are concerned with their civilization descending into barbarism. Progressives are frequently worried about oppression and the condition of the oppressed. Libertarians tend to prefer free choice over coercion. Instead, we usually hear rhetoric about conservatives wanting a police state, progressives wanting a nanny state, and libertarians wanting chaos. I've covered the principle of charity in a previous blog post. Dr. Kling urges us to come up with a more charitable way to see others' points of view, thereby having more efficient debates.
View Yourself Accurately
In Bryan Kaplan's article The Ideological Turing Test, he addresses the importance of being able to craft an argument on behalf of your opponent. He states that "the ability to pass ideological Turing tests - to state opposing views as clearly and persuasively as their proponents - is a genuine symptom of objectivity and wisdom." The quote by economist Paul Krugman featured in this article attempts to make the case that liberals have this ability to understand opposing arguments, while conservatives lack that ability. Krugman may view himself or others this way, but he has made a hasty generalization about both liberals' and conservatives' reasoning ability.
Princeton psychology professor and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman explains the two systems of the mind in his 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow. In the emotional intuitive system, or system 1, we form our thoughts more quickly and emotionally. The logical system, or system 2, involves slower, more calculated decision-making. According to Dr. Kling, psychologists have found that people sometimes think they are using system 2 when in fact they are only trying to rationalize an emotionally held belief. He goes on to say, "If you're engaging in reasoning in order to close your mind, which you do when you demonize someone else, then you're really using reasoning for unreasonable purposes."
Evaluate Correctly
Dr. Kling suggests that it would be good practice to evaluate policies based on what they are expected to actually produce, rather than on the intentions with which they were formulated. He makes reference to what is called the "intention heuristic", whereby the morality of a given policy is judged based on its intentions and not on its unintended consequences. One may argue that A is a problem which must be dealt with, so B is a policy which must be instituted to correct it. In time, B produces the outcome C, which is far worse than A.
The bottom line is to remember the charity principle from the Code of Conduct for Argumentation. In using it, we will make our debates more efficient and productive.
Mark Lilly is a writer and editor working to promote rational thinking in the way we view our news and our world. Don't be fooled by rhetoric. Get a thinker's advantage with all the resources available at http://www.howtoreason.com/.
No comments:
Post a Comment