Some arguments have long been found to be misconceived because they are framed around a false dichotomy. Imagine arguing over if we should run around continuously all day or stay still 24/7 – neither option is remotely sensible, and no one would want to waste time disputing which to choose. Yet in politics, many arguments with no life in them have nonetheless been deployed in zombie-like attacks. Anyone infected by them are liable to seek out ‘enemies’ with all rationality gone. Let’s take a look at a few of these.
‘Socialism v Capitalism’ is code for one of the most common zombie arguments: should we have a completely state-controlled economy or an absolutely free market with no regulation at all? The implication is that the unacceptability of one would serve as the justification for the other, but no one can seriously think that either of these is viable. Ample evidence has shown that the closer any country gets towards overwhelming state economic control or relentless deregulation, it increasingly suffers economically AND socially. What works in practice is responsive adjustment to introduce or remove state involvement in light of what in each case may help businesses and workers and the wider public.
‘Hawk v Dove’ is a classic zombie argument in defence discussions. On the one hand, ‘hawk’ is supposed to be the way forward because ‘dove’ is blindly pacifistic and won’t do anything to defend one’s country’; on the other, ‘dove’ is meant to be sound because ‘hawk’ is blinkered in its aggression and will fuel disastrous conflicts which could have been avoided. But how crass it would be to assume that one must always shoot and bomb regardless or insist that a gesture of peace will solve every problem. History tells us that we need both military and diplomatic capability, and an evidence-based approach to guide us over how to combine them in different circumstances.
'Unquestionable Values v Anything Goes’ provides the core theme that lends itself to variations such as ‘our religion must be unchallenged’-v-‘my freedom must be absolute’, and ‘our customs are to be accepted by all’-v-‘my choices are no one else’s business’, etc. It is widely recognised that there is no single religion or set of customs that commands the assent of everyone in any modern city, or country, let alone the world. At the same time, what any individual or group does can have serious consequences for others living near or far away. It follows that we cannot dogmatically impose any doctrine as binding on everyone or allow all to behave without any regard for the wellbeing of others. Laws and policies have to be devised on the basis of how civility, mutual respect, personal safety, and constructive relationships may be affected in diverse situations.
‘Justice v Rehabilitation’, to take one more example, illustrates the unthinking approach of locking two dead-ends together. It tells us that the choice is either justice by harsh treatment of the accused as demanded by the tough ‘law and order’ brigade or rehabilitation through restorative practice as favoured by soft ‘sandal-wearing’ idealists. But we already know justice may not be served at all by ‘toughness’, especially if guilt is just presumed, and there can be no rehabilitation if there is no genuine remorse. Offenders are varied – in the seriousness of their crimes, in what led them to break the law, in how they might (or might not) change their future behaviour. The relevant consideration is what ingredients would in different cases bring about the most desirable outcomes for society as well as the individuals concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment