Beating Post-Truth: Saving Politics with Philosophy

Politics in the 21st century is intellectually bankrupt. Who can shout the loudest? We ‘win’ arguments (here and throughout meaning ‘debates’) with our peers by reduction to silence. Slogans — battle-cries to rally the uninformed masses behind a point of view — threaten to replace rational debate altogether.

Slogan war is pretty much as low as argument can be. By any reasonable formal definition, slogan war doesn’t even qualify as debate — there is simply no level of intellectual sophistication. The racket hurts my ears. Doesn’t it hurt yours, too?

Properly performed, argument should be an illuminating rational process where the proponent provides good reasons for others to believe their claim is true.

I’m guilty of slogan tennis. If you’re innocent, I salute you. I really do. This blog post isn’t really designed to tell you anything that you don’t already know deep down. But I’m hoping that by bringing it to the forefront of your attention, you’ll join me in doing your bit to beat post-truth, post-haste.

So — how can philosophy save politics?

Philosophers are really, really good at arguing. That’s not to mean that they bicker all day — I mean that they are adept at drawing carefully phrased conclusions from a set of premises. Given that their opponent accepts their premises, the philosopher will convince others that their conclusion is true, or at least probable.

What pages can we take out of the philosophers’ books to help us cut the post-truth snakes from the head of Medusa?

1) The Principle of Charity

Next time you enter into a political argument, secure yourself a head-start, an upper hand and a moral high ground all in one, straight off the bat. Like this.

Always frame your opponent’s argument in the best, most persuasive possible terms

Let’s look at an example.

Goneril: “The wise Lords have got the right idea. They favour lower taxation for commercial institutions.”

Regan: “I can see that you say this since you’re happy for the rich to get richer resting on their laurels of success”

Cordelia: “Goneril, I can see why you might say that. Their goal is ultimately to support the nation. Wide commercial success is crucial to the success of the nation. So there are certainly reasons to think that lower taxation will encourage new commercial bodies to begin trade. Healthier trade, and more work for the local people. However…”

I bet you’re feeling much more sympathetic towards Cordelia. She has framed Goneril’s position in a way that assumes that the proponent is intelligent and ethical. She has acknowledged positive reasons as to why her opponent might hold this position. Now, Cordelia is in a far stronger position since they have set positive foundations and can now focus on some details of genuine weakness. Her charitable analysis of the position suggests further lines of politically interesting debate.

2) Relevant Evidence

In practice, fact-based debate in politics is problematic. This is largely because data is raw and agnostic. When it comes to interpretation, the very same data could be used to support opposing views. Yet…

Claims cannot be unsubstantiated

Alright, alright… Enough of that.

We must acknowledge that political arguments tend to be inductive as opposed to deductive, and note some implications. The truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it just makes it probable.

Compare this deductive argument:

1) All cats are mammals (Premise)

2) All mammals are animals (Premise)

3) Pansy is a cat (Premise)

4) Pansy is a mammal (From 1, 3)

5) Pansy is an animal (Conclusion From 2, 4)

With:

1) Some people claim that foxes should not have right from freedom from hunting, therefore fox hunting is morally permissible (Premise)

2) Since foxes are wild animals, they are not legally afforded any special rights (Premise)

3) However, experiential evidence strongly suggests that they suffer when hunted (Premise)

4) Even if they are not assigned rights, foxes suffer (From 1, 2)

5) Causing suffering is morally corrupt (Premise)

6) Therefore, hunting foxes is morally corrupt (Conclusion)

The truth of the conclusion in the deductive argument is guaranteed by its premises (this is called validity) on pain of contradiction. This isn’t the case with the inductive argument. The argument could be sound (meaning that the premises are true) yet the conclusion false without pain of contradiction.

So how can we determine which argument is the better? It’s about how holistic each argument is. What has been considered? What has not? Ultimately, which is the better framework for belief?

A more comprehensive argument will have by its very nature take into consideration a greater number of aspects. Each premise, or aspect, can be assessed separately for soundness (the extent to which it is true). The best way to prove the truth of a premise is to provide evidence for the reader to assess.

See how the Principle of Charity comes into play here? Covering as many aspects as possible, regardless of whether that aspect supports your conclusion, only strengthens your position since your opponent has fewer paths down which to tread against you.

So, keep your arguments holistic. Acknowledge as many relevant points as you feel is necessary. And back up your claims with evidence.

3) Acknowledging The Boundaries

Convictions run deep. There are times when what seems like a fruitful argument really falls down to a matter of belief. Core beliefs are not always rational (though by no means necessarily irrational), and they are often immutable.

Where this is the case, it is good practice to acknowledge the assumption one is making. A devoted Catholic might say:

“If we are made in the eyes of God, then abortion is wrong. I do happen to believe that we are made in the eyes of God, so it follows that I don’t believe in abortion. Nevertheless, I accept that if you don’t believe we’re made in the eyes of God, you don’t need to accept my conclusion”.

This is far more fruitful than merely to claim that abortion is wrong. You can be committed to the right to choose, and still be in agreement with the proponent.

More generally, narrowing the gap between two points of view increases your chances of conversion to your point of view. Where a view is informed by strong convictions, only by sharing the feeling and reason behind your own conviction could you hope to persuade another to alter their view. Of course, one should always be open to having their mind changed in return. Delivered logically yet sensitively, the worst you can do is generate at least a little empathy for your view, even if nobody’s mind is changed.

So there you go.

If nothing else, I hope I’ve brought what you really already knew to the front of your mind. Let’s make a dent in the rising culture of post-truth, and the evil that comes with it.