It is crucial that one practices what he preaches: it is a Christian duty to live like Christ and pursue his message. Yet ad hominem arguments are levied too often in today's controversial issues. Too often it seems that pointed-out hypocrisy is then spun to abrogate the message itself: if someone doesn't fulfill their duty then the entire system they adhere to could subjected to ridicule.
Aside from the morality of war (worthy of posts or a series itself!), let's analyze a common "anti/pro-war" dialogue. I have witnessed many labelings of "chickenhawks"--those who support a war effort, but then not sign up for duty. It used to refer to the Vietnam era, where many sought to avoid the draft in various ways. Today it adapted to a non-conscription society and applies to those who support the war but do not voluntarily sign up for it.
Many correctly see this as superficial logic at best. Extending this argument to other facets shows that moral authority does not necessarily rest on intimate knowledge or experience. If this were the case, then people couldn't--or morally shouldn't--opine on our complex tax systems without obtaining economic degrees or CPA licenses. Likewise people couldn't demand more police or fire brigades without signing up to enter the dangerous situations inherent in them. Even if this argument at best stretches the analogy--the point is clear.
While there are some opinions that are morally questionable or even reprehensible, it does not always follow that the moral answer is to act upon the opinion to be qualified to hold it. If an anti-war individual brands someone a hypocrite for not fighting in a "immoral war", is the hypocrite thus redeemed by fighting the immoral war? Few would fail to see past this catch-22. Some might take my point and argue they are demonstrating the immorality of war. Point taken, but I would counter that there are better ways to go about it.
Nonetheless, ad hominem arguments lend themselves to claiming a type of superficial moral authority. Mind you, not by the morality of the cause itself, but by some personal connection to the cause. Claiming moral authority--as opposed to mere opinion-- only by means of experience and knowledge necessarily forebades or stifles opinions held by those outside of this grouping. The "chickenhawk" style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers. Yet it trumps nothing about the opinion, just the person. And that keeps the debate at square-one.
Anti-war activism should legitimately attack the war, not simply its adherents. Likewise, those pointing out hypocrisy likewise must be capable of distinguishing the falliable individual and the message.
Aside from the morality of war (worthy of posts or a series itself!), let's analyze a common "anti/pro-war" dialogue. I have witnessed many labelings of "chickenhawks"--those who support a war effort, but then not sign up for duty. It used to refer to the Vietnam era, where many sought to avoid the draft in various ways. Today it adapted to a non-conscription society and applies to those who support the war but do not voluntarily sign up for it.
Many correctly see this as superficial logic at best. Extending this argument to other facets shows that moral authority does not necessarily rest on intimate knowledge or experience. If this were the case, then people couldn't--or morally shouldn't--opine on our complex tax systems without obtaining economic degrees or CPA licenses. Likewise people couldn't demand more police or fire brigades without signing up to enter the dangerous situations inherent in them. Even if this argument at best stretches the analogy--the point is clear.
While there are some opinions that are morally questionable or even reprehensible, it does not always follow that the moral answer is to act upon the opinion to be qualified to hold it. If an anti-war individual brands someone a hypocrite for not fighting in a "immoral war", is the hypocrite thus redeemed by fighting the immoral war? Few would fail to see past this catch-22. Some might take my point and argue they are demonstrating the immorality of war. Point taken, but I would counter that there are better ways to go about it.
Nonetheless, ad hominem arguments lend themselves to claiming a type of superficial moral authority. Mind you, not by the morality of the cause itself, but by some personal connection to the cause. Claiming moral authority--as opposed to mere opinion-- only by means of experience and knowledge necessarily forebades or stifles opinions held by those outside of this grouping. The "chickenhawk" style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers. Yet it trumps nothing about the opinion, just the person. And that keeps the debate at square-one.
Anti-war activism should legitimately attack the war, not simply its adherents. Likewise, those pointing out hypocrisy likewise must be capable of distinguishing the falliable individual and the message.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment