Political debates are illogical

Post Reply New Topic

I was just thinking about how the majority of people debate political issues. I notice that logic is often used as facade to make a person appear more intelligent. With most debates people will implicitly disagree on the premises of their respective arguments, yet they never come out and state their premises. If they did all arguments would amount to a simple contradiction of claims. In most cases it’s inconvenient to explicitly state the premise of the argument because a statement of the implications of the premise happens to be more emotionally loaded than a statement of the premise itself.

The best example of this is the abortion issue. “Pro life” advocates implicitly assume the fetus is a conscious being from conception. “Pro choice” advocates implicitly assume that fetus is not a human with rights until it exits the mother’s body. Yet abortion debates always revolve around the implied rights of the fetus or mother with no mention of the underlying premises. Instead the argument focuses on emotionally loaded statements, e.g. “you can’t tell a women what she can or cannot do with her own body” or “abortion is murder”.

In the end most political debates are just logical fallacies and emotional manipulation. Without appealing to these tactics most arguments would become superfluous.

In general, on the popular levels, actually debating the moral axioms of political systems is impractical. However, it should be noted that some political philsophies do not accept that people can/ought to disagree on their basic framework, specifically I am thinking of Rawlsian Political Liberalism which attempts at least to portray itself as something everyone can agree on (though of course they don't).

On the abortion thing, modern pro-choice arguments are at least somewhat derivative of Judith Thomson's argument that it is irrelevant whether or not abortion is murder because the rights of the fetus cannot include the right of the fetus to appropriate the mother's body for its sustenance anymore than anyone else can have the right to appropriate someone for their own survival. This paper did a good job of arguing that preventing abortion is a violation of very elementary principles of political rights.

I agree that political debates are generally presented in a dishonest fashion and are not very useful except to sway people's emotions.

I have seen some high quality abortion discussions. They're uncommon though. We had a fairly decent one going on here in which a number of people from both sides were actually holding a calm and honest conversation, but of course others kept barging in with the same ol' emotional appeals. It takes a long time and a great deal of good will on both sides in order to peel back the layers of fallacies and get to the heart of the matter.

Let's made an effort not to turn this thread into a birdwalk about abortion though. I think the original assertion that marshall made about the nature of political debate is a very valid point and one that is not often raised. This fact has some disturbing consequences in the world of politics. The number one reason I regard most politicians as dishonest is not because of corruption or money but because I think they pander to the crowds, appealing to people's emotional impressions rather than encouraging the population to think critically. I find the American presidential debates distasteful because the whole charade is parading around as intellectualism when in reality it's nothing more than a couple of salesmen pitching themselves.

It's hard to judge without reading the original paper but what you said sounds like sophistry to me. Appropriate is a perfect example of a loaded term. The definition of appropriate is “to make use of without authority or right”. You wouldn’t say that children appropriate their parents for their own survival, yet children depend on their parents for survival.

edit: this is a reply to twoshots, not gwenevyn

I love debates. I can sit around and listen to one for hours. I enjoy listening to the two sides expecting to get convinced or swayed.

Political Debates is a bit illogical though. Ha. It is like arguing whether you like pizza or hamburgers and then waste millions of dollars trying to convince others the Parmesan cheese on the pizza is more sophisticated than the American cheese on the hamburger.

Either way, it is still food to people...at least for me.

im considering relocating out of the US lol

Most people do not think rationally very often. Indeed even quite rational people use irrational "superstitious," emotional, or value-based thought processes for most everyday things, it's just how brains work. Politicians and think tanks are good and finding buzzwords, talking points, and ways to frame issues that latch on to those irrational though processes.

It's pointless, yet people do it anyway, me included.

The other problem I have is that I would be a hypocrite to not acknowledge that I must rely on irrational thought processes in order to take a strong stance on anything. When I see arguments about the theory of political or economic systems I find that, unlike most people, I have no emotional attachment to the issue. As a result I feel very apathetic about it.

It’s only in the instances I see evil or injustice staring me in the face that I feel compelled to take a strong stance. I also might feel compelled to take a stance if the issue is something that affects me personally. Yet I have to admit that these stances are not based on logic, but an emotional appeal. The “evil” and/or “injustice” that I sense is an emotional reaction to something I see.