The Art of Non-Argument: How to Debate without Debating

There is a strand of argumentation that I have been seeing very frequently of late, and it is one of which I have become increasingly weary, and would love nothing more than if the entire world just agreed to drop the whole thing for the good of mankind. Rightly speaking, it isn't really even an argument, but rather a non-argument. It is an attempt to do away with argument, stop it cold in its tracks, so that the conversation can't continue.

This non-argument is seen in many different conversations and is stated in many different ways. It comes up in conversations about law, about justice, and about public morality. Its specifics vary from time to time, but it almost always starts with the following statement: "that may be your personal opinion, but...."

In effect this non-argument does not insist that the opposing view is wrong, but rather that the opposing view is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how reasonable, how rational, or how true the opposing view is. All that matters is that the opposing view has no place interfering with the outside world. It is not an attempt to refute the view, or show where the one proposing it has erred. It is a trump card, designed not to engage in debate, but rather to avoid debate altogether. Playing this trump card is simply an attempt to prevent the logic and reason of others from having influence on one's own thought.

And I can easily see why one might be tempted to make this non-argument. As we have seen from the ladder of inference, the premises we take to a conversation—true or false—are personal and based on our experiences. Another person, with another set of experiences, may approach the conversation with a different premise. Since no amount of rational argument or reasonable deduction will convince another person that his experiences did not happen, it is in most cases impossible to change the opinion of the other person. And since the premises—and experiences upon which they are based—are not only not the topic of the conversation, but most frequently are not even brought up, we most often don't even know why we disagree on the topic. The rude person assumes the other person has a defective brain, and calls him stupid or his views irrational. The charitable person, trying to understand how a seemingly intelligent and reasonable person may have arrived at such an unintelligent and unreasonable conclusion, may be tempted to simply invoke the non-argument. That is, "well, the person may have reasons for his belief, but since they are not my reasons, they don't affect me." Hence, the "that may be your personal belief...."

What irks me most about the non-argument, is that, in its attempt to defuse the disagreement charitably, it doesn't seem to have thought itself through very well. For, truly, aren't all our beliefs personal? If one person's argument is not admissible because it's his personal belief, why not any other's? Shouldn't we adopt the post permissible moral code possible? "Well, yes," reply the non-arguers. "To each his own." But then, does that not allow for all sorts of atrocities, from murder, rape, and torture to shoplifting, petty theft and everything in between? "No of course not! You mustn't harm another person!" But... isn't this your personal belief? And since the definition of "person" is one of the very things the non-argument is often used to obfuscate, why should we use your personal definition of personhood over any other? Taking it further, isn't it only your personal belief that personal beliefs should not be forced on others? In its attempt to marginalize the other person's argument, the non-argument marginalizes itself.

The non-argument attempts to reduce law, justice, and morality to the realm of the subjective, such that preference for one morality over another is simply like a preference for chocolate over vanilla. The problem is, I've never met someone who actually treats morality as if its not objective. Those who make the assertion that morality is always a private matter are the ones who are most indignant and most self-righteous at perceived injustices against themselves or others. If all morality is a private matter, subject to personal opinion, then there can be nothing inherently immoral about injustice. On what ground do you protest someone who commits an injustice against another? It may be your personal opinion that his actions are immoral, but who are you to enforce your personal opinions on others?

Of course, I'm being a little unfair here by grouping everyone who makes the non-argument into a group with those who deny objective morality. Many who non-argue are not opposed to the concept of a universal moral law, but rather, simply misunderstand the opposing view. The non-arguer may not understand the reasons behind his opponent's views, and just simply infer that it's for some mysterious unknowable reason. "You only say that because you think the Bible tells you to." But this, again, is a non-argument, because it doesn't address the actual reasons behind the view, just the inferred reasons. It ignores the appeals to natural law and objective truth, and instead simply attacks a strawman.

Despite these obvious (to me) problems with the non-argument, I continue to see it used whenever someone doesn't want to admit a view contrary to their own into the debate. Whenever someone takes a stand for traditional marriage, the non-argument will be made "that's just your personal opinion about marriage! You can't force that on others!" Whenever someone says that it is an injustice to deny the unborn their rights, someone else will non-argue "but that's merely your opinion on personhood! You can't deny a woman her right to choose!" Whenever someone explains the moral difficulties of euthanasia, the non-argument appears, "keep your morality off my body!" In none of the cases is the non-arguer actually making a case about the nature of marriage, the rights of the human person, or the dignity of human life. All he is saying is that all such arguments are irrelevant.

Delusions of Reality

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? No, it's not doing the same thing expecting different results. That's called practice. I do it every day with the piano and, sure enough, the results are slightly better each day.

No, insanity is when one's perception of reality is different from reality itself. For instance, a man who believes himself Theodore Roosevelt, or thinks himself a cat, or that he hears voices. In each case, the person's idea of what is real is different from what is really real. The man is not Theodore Roosevelt, or a cat, and the voices are mere hallucination.

Increasingly, I've been feeling that the whole world has gone, by this definition, completely insane. Totally loony. Off their rockers. Large swaths of the population seem to be totally given over to ideas that have no bearing in reality. It's like everyone is playing a children's game where we all pretend we're monkeys in the zoo, or astronauts in outer space, or cowboys and Indians. But when I don't play along, or return to reality and stop pretending, everyone gets mad and indignant with me because they really believe they are monkeys or astronauts or cowboys. It's really quite surreal.

What brought on this feeling most recently was an article my Google reader recommended items pointed me towards (it recommends weird things). Apparently a school in Michigan has refused to allow a girl to be homecoming king because she's a girl, not a boy. This is, apparently, a problem because the girl is playing a make-believe game in which she pretends she's a boy. But the weird part is that so many other people are playing along and pretending the same thing. The news item itself refers to her as a "him", despite the fact that it even mentions towards the end that she hasn't even had the cosmetic surgery to add boy-parts. So in no real, objective way is this girl a boy--only in her mind and the minds of those playing along with her. She has no Y-chromosome, or male genitalia, or a prostate, or any of the biological capabilities that set men and women apart, yet many people seem totally willing to give themselves into the fantasy that she is somehow a boy.

The thing is, I understand how we arrived at this point. This bit of insanity starts with a very simple and common desire--people want to have sex. Nothing in the world wrong with that, of course. "The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity," sayeth the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2335) (emphasis original). The problem comes when people want sex without consequences. Since procreation is the natural end of sex--as ordained by God and, y'know, biology and natural selection--we have to step into our first little bit of insanity to get the footloose and fancy free sex we want: we must pretend that babies are not the natural end of sex, but an unintended side effect. This is, of course, a perception that is disconnected with reality--an insanity, if you will--but one that is pretty easy to make. After all, babies only occasionally occur from sex, and with contraception, they almost never occur (although I always feel obliged to mention my friend who has gotten pregnant three times while on The Pill). It becomes very easy to enter the contraceptive mentality, and convince ourselves that, as Jennifer Fulwiler says, "pregnancies that weren’t planned [are] akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street — something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives."

But this new pseudo-reality we've created for ourselves has consequences and implications of its own. If we pretend that sex is only for pleasure or bonding, and only mutual consent is required, then that means that any sexual act that fulfills that purpose of pleasure is not only licit, but equivalent to any other sex act with the same goal. The necessary outcome of this make-believe logic is that homosexual acts are equivalent to heterosexual acts. Suddenly, we've found ourselves with a new bit of insanity and we must now say that sex that has the potential to produce life is no different than sex that cannot by its very nature. We must pretend that homosexuals' unions are just like that of my wife and me, even though we made one of these and they can't. This is a much bigger disconnect from reality, but once we have accepted it, we are forced to pretend that, since homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are the same, therefore gay "marriage" must be permitted because not to do so would be discrimination.

And yet again, this new bit of greater insanity pushes us further along. For if gay "marriage" and real marriage are no different, then that means that men and women, when you get right down to it, are no different. And here we've finally arrived in Cloud Cuckoo Land. This is where we end up saying that we must pretend a girl is a boy simply because she says she is. We have separated our thoughts from reality. Real, objective things in the real, objective world no longer hold sway on our minds. We have gone bonkers.

(Another consequence of the make-believe world in which pregnancy is an accident is that it leads us to the perfectly reasonable and compassionate conclusion that it's cruel to require a woman to be pregnant against her will--since her little insanity made her incapable of knowing sex could get her pregnant--which leads to allowing her to "terminate the pregnancy", to use a euphemism for infanticide. But since no one is in favor of infanticide, we must, therefore, pretend that the infant is not one, or is not alive, or does not exist. This delusion leads us to completely absurd ways of rationalizing our make-believe world. Instead of using the English word for baby, we use the Latin one ("fetus"), and pretend that changes the nature of the baby. We invent arbitrary and make-believe criteria for humanity or personhood or "aliveness" and pretend that since the baby absorbs oxygen through an umbilical cord instead of his lungs, or since he cannot survive in an environment hostile to him, he somehow is not alive (how many dead people do you know with a heartbeat?). The more science piles on evidence of the humanity of the pre-born, the more we arbitrarily raise the bar and invent make-believe reasons that it is not.)

The thing is, at some point between "I want to have sex with that hot girl in the bar" and "a girl is a boy," I would think that people would realize the insanity of their train of thought, and the disconnect it has with reality. But yet people plow ahead, full throttle, never looking back, never stopping to consider where they're going. I find myself wondering, with a good deal of trepidation, what the next piece of absurdity will bring.

As J. Budziszewski points out, sin begets sin, but as Mark Shea points out, sin makes you stupid. We start with a simple sin and end with a simple madness.