The Ethics of Controversy by Sidney Hook
The Ethics of Controversy
Sidney Hook, 1954
The Ground Rules of Controversy in a
Democracy:
1.
Nothing and no one is immune
from criticism.
2.
Everyone involved in a
controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself (sic.) of the
available facts.
3.
Criticism should be directed
first to policies, and against persons only when they are responsible for
policies, and against their motives or purposes only when there is some
independent evidence of their character.
4.
Because certain words are
legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.
5.
BEFORE impugning an opponent’s
motives, even when they legitimately be impugned, answer his arguments.
6.
Do not treat an opponent of a
policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy or an enemy of the country or a
concealed enemy of democracy.
7.
Since a good cause may be
defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another’s
position present positive evidence for your own.
8.
Do not hesitate to admit lack
of knowledge or to suspend judgement if evidence is not decisive either way.
9.
Only in pure logic and
mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is
strictly impossible. Because something is logically possible, it is not
therefore probable. “It is not impossible” is a preface to an irrelevant
statement about human affairs. The question is always one of the balance of
probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than
abstract possibilities.
10. The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of
policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion.
Note: By quoting an entire chapter from the book I may have quoted too much but I do not do thing with the intention of making a profit from it but spreading ideas that need to be remembered. Maybe people that read this one chapter will be motivated to buy the book.
From
Philosophy and Public Policy
by Sidney Hook
Southern Illinois University Press.
Chapter 8
The
Ethics of Controversy
Page 117
Democratic society cannot exist without
free discussion. One of its basic assumptions is that truth of fact and wisdom
of policy can be more readily achieved through the lively interchange of ideas
and opinions than by unchallengeable edicts on the part of a self-perpetuating
elite whether of theologians or philosophers or politicians or even scientific
experts. Throughout history, controversy and spirited differences have always
marked the deliberations of communities of free men. Their pooled judgments,
expressed in public decisions, always reflect the criticism of healthy
opposition.
But if democratic society cannot exist
without free discussion, some kinds of discussion tend to undermine democratic
society. Political life, of course, is not a game; yet, it has certain implicit
ground rules which must be observed if freely delegated government by majority
is not to degenerate into the tyranny of the mob, or the dictatorship of
faction.
In a democratic society, what is morally
permissible and impermissible in public controversy follows from the commitment
to permit all sectional, class and individual interests to express themselves
openly and honestly before reaching a consensus of agreement on measures that
seek to further the common welfare.
As natural creatures, men have needs and interests
whose specific form depends upon the times and society in which they live.
Conflicts of interest, conflicts of judgment concerning these interests and the
best methods of fulfilling them are inescapable in a world of limited resources
and fallible intelligence. The democratic process is the best method so far
devised by which these conflicts of interest and judgment may be resolved
without repression or violence. Discussion is the lifeblood of the democratic
process, and, wherever discussion flourishes, controversy is sure to arise.
Certain methods of controversy, however,
poison instead of refresh the lifeblood of democracy. They are characterized by
the fact that they do not desire to establish the truth or to approximate it as
closely as conditions permit. They seek to discredit persons rather than to
consider problems. They ignore or suppress relevant evidence. They aim to
create a mood of refusal to listen to views challenging some favored or
dominant notions. Instead of exposing, confronting, reconciling, or negotiating
the conflicts of interest and opinion, one interest is fanatically identified
with the common interest, and one opinion with the loyal opinion.
The cumulative effect of such practices is
to generate an atmosphere in which the self-corrective procedures of democracy
cannot operate. Fact rarely catches up with rumor. Opponents legitimately at
odds with each other within the framework of the democratic system are pictured
as enemies of the democratic system itself. The reciprocal esteem which
citizens of a democratic community should feel for each other, even in
disagreement, is replaced by mutual contempt and hate. Instead of being used as
an instrument to explore fresh possibilities in the quest for solutions,
intelligence becomes a tool to secure only a narrow partisan advantage. Even
the liberal mind, by focusing too intently on achievement of immediate
objectives without concern for methods, risks becoming transformed into the
crafty mind. Most dispiriting of all, some who recognize and denounce morally
objectionable techniques of controversy when practiced by others often use them
themselves, thus adding hypocrisy to confusion and forgetting that those who
blandly lie in a good cause must continue to lie to avoid being found out.
The abuses of free discussion are legion.
Short of criminal libel and incitement to, or advocacy of, violence in a
situation of clear and present danger, they should not be the subject of legal
restraints. For, just as soon as legal restraints are adopted against the
various forms of deliberate untruth, malicious and scurrilous exaggeration,
venomous insinuation, and outright fabrication, they become weapons to curb
honest error and to hamper the spontaneous expression of free minds. In the
last analysis, only self-discipline can prevent the level of public discussion
from sinking below the safety-line of democratic health. The restraints
entailed by good form in discussion are, therefore, more than a matter of good
manners: They are a matter of good public morals.
In a world of universal literacy in which
everyone is within earshot of a radio, words have become more potent social
forces than ever before. No one can write the history of the Weimar Republic or
the Kerensky regime or even of modern France without recognizing the extent to
which whispering campaigns, calumniation of public figures, and ill-founded
accusations against political opponents undermined civic morale and destroyed
mutual confidence.
Totalitarian practices in controversy are
at least consistent with totalitarian theory. Both Bolshevik and Fascist
doctrine deny that there is, or can be, any such thing as "fair" or
"classless" or even "objective" discussion of issues. Truth
is identified with partisan interest. This serves as a premise to justify the
wildest slander against those whom totalitarians oppose, if only it furthers
the interest of the party or race. Hitler exhausted the vocabulary of abuse
against the leaders of other political groups. Lenin was amazingly frank in
justifying the use of poisoned weapons of controversy even against other
working-class groups.
A few years before the Russian Revolution,
Lenin was tried in a kind of Court of Honor set up by the Social Democratic
party (one of whose factions he headed) for using morally impermissible
polemical methods. He was charged with impugning the integrity of party members
and thus confusing the Russian workers. Lenin defiantly stood his ground and
admitted that the tone of his words and their formulation were;
"... calculated to evoke in the reader hatred,
aversion and contempt.... Such a formulation is calculated not to convince, but
to break up the ranks of an opponent, not to correct the mistakes of an
opponent, but to destroy him, to wipe his organization off the face of the
earth. This formulation is indeed of such a nature as to evoke the worst
thoughts, the worst suspicions about the opponents, and indeed, as contrasted
with formulation that convinces and corrects, it "carries confusion into
the ranks of the proletariat."[1]
Only toward members of a united party (that
is, when they agreed with him or his faction in the Central Committee) did
Lenin admit that such methods were morally impermissible. But against all
others such methods were mandatory. "Against such political enemies I conducted and ... shall always conduct a
fight of extermination.''[2]
When political feelings run high in
democratic communities, many who are firmly opposed to communism and fascism
employ techniques of disputation which bear the hallmarks of totalitarian
polemics. Anyone who studies the totalitarian press and the proceedings of
demonstration trials will find certain recurrent patterns of accusation that
show up with alarming frequency in countries this side of the Iron Curtain. One
of the most familiar is the systematic confusion between what constitutes
evidence of the consequences of an
action or policy with what constitutes evidence of its intent.
No moral judgment can be passed upon any
individual human action without an appraisal of its intent. Consequences alone
cannot be a fair test of intentions. A common procedure in Soviet and satellite
countries is to charge that the consequences of a policy have been disastrous
(the charge is rarely proved), and then to take the alleged disastrous
consequences as sufficient proof of the presence of an intention to bring them
about. This ''justifies" the secret police in torturing the defendant to
confess to an intention which has already been objectively established by the
consequences. In effect, an accident becomes a crime; ignorance is
indistinguishable from treason, and error a form of sabotage. The Bolshevik
concept of "objective counterrevolutionary" guilt, inferred not only
from the presumed consequences of a man's actions but from his membership in a
family or class and other non-voluntary forms of association, led to the
liquidation of millions.
Recent political argument in the United
States seems to show that, in the heat of controversy, the most elementary
distinctions have been overlooked. From the true proposition that policies can
be intelligently tested only by their consequences, the false proposition is
drawn that the consequences alone are the conclusive test of the intent or
motives behind the policies. A bad result is deemed proof of a wicked purpose
(particularly if one's political opponents are responsible for the decision),
and a good result is proof of good will (particularly if one's political
friends initiated it). This summarizes many pages of discussion today.
In nonpolitical contexts, the crudity and
cruelty of such simplistic criticism is easily recognized and universally
repudiated. It would be tantamount to charging a surgeon whose patient had died
under the knife with murder or a general of a defeated army with being in the
service of the enemy.
It would be preposterous to equate the
systematic employment of poisoned instruments of controversy in totalitarian
countries with the serious abuses of discussion in free cultures; for, in the
former, a single minority party has a total monopoly of the power of
denunciation and defamation. But the presence of intellectually dishonest
techniques of argument in a free culture, even when they are employed by many
parties in the peaceful struggle for political power, is a disquieting
phenomenon. It is a betrayal of the spirit of the democratic process even when
it abides by its legal forms.
Several books and many articles have been
written which persuasively argue that if someone had set out to serve the
Communist cause, he would have advocated certain policies and behaved in
certain ways. Evidence is then presented that some individuals did advocate
these policies and behave in these ways. This is then considered conclusive
proof that he did set out to serve the Communist cause. No further inquiry is
deemed necessary to determine the independent facts about his memberships,
activities, and other data relevant to his intentions or purposes. It is
overlooked that, just as the same conclusion can be reached from different premises,
so the same policy may be advocated for two entirely different, and sometimes
incompatible, sets of motives. A member of the Communist party, for example,
may advocate unilateral disarmament for the United States. But so may an
absolute pacifist, in the belief that the Kremlin will kiss the other cheek
instead of slapping it. The first should not be eligible for government
employment, certainly not in a sensitive post; the second, however, may be
eligible, and, if ineligible, only on grounds relevant to his competence which
have nothing to do with his loyalty.
One of Senator McCarthy's favorite
techniques of argument is to insinuate that, since a policy has been followed
by the Kremlin, or approved by the Kremlin, anyone else who advocated such a
policy is therewith suspect of being a Soviet agent. Unfortunately, some of
those who are critical of Senator McCarthy's methods do not hesitate to use
some of his techniques of argument against those who disagree with them:
Because Senator McCarthy says that the Communist party is a conspiracy,
therefore anyone who says that the Communist party is a conspiracy is suspect
of McCarthyism. But what makes a thing true is not who says it, but the
evidence for it; the evidence that the Communist party is a conspiratorial
movement, and not like other American political parties, is by now
overwhelming.
The intellectual circles of the country
have a responsibility for teaching, and living up to, the highest standards of
vigorous controversy. But there are signs even here of infection by the virus
of partisanship. One occasionally hears members of the learned professions
substitute abuse for logical analysis and, unable to meet argument or evidence
for some positions of which they disapprove, inveigh against the presumed
"unconscious" of those who uphold them. When the methods of the
marketplace and of the black marketplace invade the academy, the intellectual
life of a country is debased.
The ground rules of controversy in a
democracy are simple, and their reaffirmation may sound like truisms. They are
truisms. But when denied or violated, truisms become very important. That their
reaffirmation is necessary is an indication of how low political discussion has
sunk.
Among these rules are:
1.
Nothing and no one is immune
from criticism.
2.
Everyone involved in a
controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself of the
available facts.
3.
Criticism should be directed
first to policies, and against persons only when they are responsible for
policies, and against their motives or purposes only when there is some
independent evidence of their character.
4.
Because certain words are
legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.”
5.
Before impugning an opponent's
motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
6.
Do not treat an opponent of a
policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy or an enemy of the country or a
concealed enemy of democracy.
7.
Since a good cause may be
defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another's
position present positive evidence for your own.
8.
Do not hesitate to admit lack
of knowledge or to suspend judgment if evidence is not decisive either way.
9.
Only in pure logic and
mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is
strictly impossible. Because something is logically possible, it is not
therefore probable. "It is not impossible" is a preface to an
irrelevant statement about human affairs. The question is always one of the
balance of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more
than abstract possibilities.
10. The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of
policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion.
These ground rules express in nuce the logic and ethics of
scientific inquiry. From one point of view, science may be considered as a
field of continuing controversy which leaves behind it not burning hatreds, but
vast accumulations of knowledge. It is not necessary to deny the vast
differences between the subject-matters of the natural sciences and the
disciplines concerned with human affairs to recognize that, if the spirit of
scientific inquiry were brought to bear on most questions of politics, American
democracy would be both wiser and more secure.
1954”
Comments
Post a Comment