# Bricker: This is not a good debating technique **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213 "2005-12-18T22:28:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/101 "2005-12-19T19:33:44Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Well, perhaps it is a minimalist moral system, but if using the law as a tool to impose our moral beliefs on others is a bad thing, then at least imposing a minimalist set of beliefs is _less_ bad. Ah, there’s the rub: claiming that “using the law as a tool to impose our moral beliefs on others is a bad thing” **is itself a moral claim**. Unless we’re willing to go down a purely Social Contractarian path–a path that among its many problems offers no protections to infants from murdering parents–then whatever model we use for building the law is going to have a moral system at its heart. I disagree that this is fundamentally a bad thing. > [@](#): > > The problem with that is that if you accept that it’s OK to base a law solely on your moral views, then the only objection you can pose to someone basing a law on _their_ moral views is “I think you’re wrong.” Whereas by saying “If the people who think like me become the majority, we shouldn’t be able to impose our brand of morality on society,” I have stronger grounds to object to it when the people who _don’t_ share my views on morality do it. If your position were consistent, then I might agree with you that it’d be a stronger position from which to condemn the Pat Roberstons of the world. However, I do not see it as a consistent position, inasmuch as it fails to recgonize the own moral assumptions that underlies it. The problem with the Pat Robertsons of the world is that they want to base the law on a flawed moral system, not that the idea of basing the law on a moral system is bad. And honestly, if you’re trying to argue with the 700 Club folks, claiming that your own system is moral might be **more** persuasive than otherwise: given how much they value moral behavior, a claim taht your system is not based on morality is not likely to win many converts from among them. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/102 "2005-12-19T20:46:00Z")
**Bricker** , in this thread you have missed the opportunity to reply simply, to wit: “My New Debating Technique Is Unstoppable.” ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/103 "2005-12-19T21:48:40Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Except, what’s wrong with saying, in the first place, “something should be made illegal if the majority considers it morally wrong”? Saying “something should be illegal only if it harms someone” is saying that that should protecting people from harm should be the only role of the government. I wouldn’t say that protecting people from harm should be the _only_ role of the government. However, I _would_ say that imposing moral beliefs (which are really just a subset of religious beliefs – perhaps the _whole_ set in the case of agnostics) should _not_ be a role of the government. > [@](#): > > If you have a different conception of government, though…if you say that the proper role of the government is to advance common societal values, then it makes a lot of sense to make things illegal if the majority considers it wrong. In that case, it’s the job of the minority to submit to the values of the majority or be punished. If those “common societal values” include religious beliefs, then you’ve just created a society without true freedom of religion. What if “not taking the lords name in vain” is a “common societal value”? What if “attending a Christian Church every Sunday” is a “common societal value”? In fact, I think (perhaps I’m wrong) that the majority of people living in America today value “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.” Should this be required by law? If you want to live in a theocracy, that’s your business, but America was founded _not_ to be that sort of place. And personally, I don’t think it _should_ be. * * * Yeah, I know I’m exaggerating your position a bit . . . Obviously you’re not advocating we force people to start going to Church and so forth. But my _point_ is that forcing people to follow a certain moral code isn’t really any different, or any better. It’s just another case of imposing the majority’s religious views on the minority. As I said, I don’t think the _only_ function of government is to prevent people from hurting each other . . . but I think it should stay out of the business of imposing religious beliefs on people. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/104 "2005-12-19T22:50:57Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Ah, there’s the rub: claiming that “using the law as a tool to impose our moral beliefs on others is a bad thing” **is itself a moral claim**. Unless we’re willing to go down a purely Social Contractarian path–a path that among its many problems offers no protections to infants from murdering parents–then whatever model we use for building the law is going to have a moral system at its heart. > > I disagree that this is fundamentally a bad thing. > If your position were consistent, then I might agree with you that it’d be a stronger position from which to condemn the Pat Roberstons of the world. However, I do not see it as a consistent position, inasmuch as it fails to recgonize the own moral assumptions that underlies it. > > The problem with the Pat Robertsons of the world is that they want to base the law on a flawed moral system, not that the idea of basing the law on a moral system is bad. And honestly, if you’re trying to argue with the 700 Club folks, claiming that your own system is moral might be **more** persuasive than otherwise: given how much they value moral behavior, a claim taht your system is not based on morality is not likely to win many converts from among them. > > Daniel I agree that my position on this issue is influenced by my moral beliefs. My position that murder should be illegal is also influenced by my moral beliefs. And no, this isn’t a bad thing. What _is_ a bad thing, in my opinion, is basing a law _solely_ on one’s moral beliefs. I don’t think I’m basing my point of view _solely_ on moral beliefs – I’m also making what I think is a factual claim, namely that using the law to impose morality on people is incompatible with maintaining a society that doesn’t impose religion on people, because moral beliefs are just a subset of religious beliefs. Even if you disagree that moral beliefs are really just a form of religious beliefs, this is a factual question that we can discuss . . . we could start by agreeing on a definition of what constitutes a religious belief, and then see if beliefs about morality fall under that definition. Or, we could examine the history of morality . . . if we did so, I think we’d find that ideas about morality have been overwhelmingly influenced by developments in religion, to the point that the two are inextricably intertwined. I also believe that if you took a poll of most Americans, you’d find that most consider their moral views to be very strongly tied to their religious beliefs. If we accept that moral beliefs are a form of religious belief, then the claim that you can’t impose moral beliefs without imposing religious beliefs follows from that. The only other part of what I’m saying that could really be considered a matter of opinion is whether or not having the government impose religious beliefs on people is a bad thing. I’ll concede that this is, at least in part, a moral judgement that I’m making . . . but I think it’s a very uncontroversial one. Let me put it this way: I don’t think letting the majority decide what we _value_ is a bad thing. It seems perfectly legitimate for the majority to decide whether we as a society value freedom of religion, and if we value the lives of babies and of bald eagles, and whether we value the preservation of historic buildings and so forth. And then it makes sense to say, “Such and such activity does demonstrable, tangible harm to this thing of value, and therefore we will prohibit it.” But if we believe that freedom of religion is something of value (which I think we _do_ believe), and we believe that moral beliefs are a subset of religious beliefs (which I think we have good factual reasons to believe), then we must add a stipulation that in making these laws, we can’t say “We value [such and such moral principle], and thus we’re prohibiting people from violating it.” And, we can’t say “we value morality, and it is our _belief_ that [such and such] behavior violates it, so we’re prohibiting that behavior.” Such laws are incompatible with preserving religious freedom, so they shouldn’t be made. Now, I suppose you could say, “Hey, wait a minute, we value preserving freedom of speech, but we still have laws restricting it. Heck, we also don’t allow people to freely practice their religion, if, say, that religion calls for human sacrifices.” But in all those cases, the practice is prohibited _because it does harm_. We won’t let someone yell “fire!” in a theater or perform human sacrifice, because those endanger human lives. And because these reasons are based on a desire to protect life, not a desire to restrict speech or impose religious views, that reasoning isn’t readily extended to more general cases. Thus, having those laws doesn’t threaten freedom of speech or freedom of religion _as a whole_. Contrast this to saying, “We’re outlawing this form of speech because we, the majority, don’t like it,” or “We’re outlawing this practice because we, the majority, find it violates our religion.” To do that _does_ threaten freedom of speech as a whole, and it does threaten freedom of religion as a whole, because it sets a precident by which _any_ speech could be outlawed, or _any_ religious belief could be imposed, according to the whims of the majority. Basically, I’m saying the only way we can safeguard our freedom from having religion imposed on us is by adhering to a general principle like “Don’t make laws based solely on religious beliefs.” Whether right or wrong, this (my whole preceding sentence) is a factual claim, not merely a belief. Likewise, my claim that moral beliefs _are_ religious beliefs is at least one that can be judged based on factual evidence (see my examples above) – I’m not saying it should be accepted just because I believe it. So I don’t really think I’m “breaking my own rule” about not determining laws based solely on one’s moral beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/105 "2005-12-20T01:01:29Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If you include infants in that harm–i.e., acts which kill babies ought to be illegal–then you’re not operating from a social contract perspective, inasmuch as infants are not part of a social contract, and murdered infants never will be. Ooooh! I remember this! It’s also OK to eat Russians, right? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/106 "2005-12-20T01:11:25Z")
In Soviet Russia, Russians eat you! ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213/107 "2005-12-20T01:32:03Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Ooooh! I remember this! > > It’s also OK to eat Russians, right? Alferd, is that you? :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-this-is-not-a-good-debating-technique/336213.md?page=5)