I get the feeling that “rational argument” and “compelling argument” are being treated as meaning about the same thing, at least by Bryan Ekers. This reminds me of a story related by Dick Feynman:
Being able to defeat an argument does not mean that it had no rational bases at all. It means that, on balance, the countervailing arguments were better.
Otherwise we get to the point of saying, “Yeah, approving of SSM is so obvious it’s trivial.”
Well, I guess it means that in future when I ask for an example of a rational anti-SSM argument, I should try to be specific about it in an effort to keep the discussion on track.
But is “majority rule” how the U.S. works at all? The argument being advanced indeed is indeed not against SSM specifically, but rather for a radical change in how the U.S. makes and enforces its laws. It’s essentially arguing for discarding the constitution. If that happens, then I expect gay marriage becomes a rather low priority.
Heck, may as well suggest a rational argument against SSM is that it’s all moot because the universe will eventually succumb to entropy and heat death.
I accept that your hypothetical arguer believes it’s a rational argument, but I’m trying honestly to find the actual reasoning and it’s lacking.
I suggest the argument represents ignorance of the constitutional system that forms U.S. law, but even if that specific fallacy does not apply, I propose wishful thinking as a replacement.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. In this particular case, I submit that the sweeping generalization stems from the arguer’s belief that since majority rule works in some situations, it’s the ideal for ALL situations, i.e. “the conclusion drawn far exceeds what the evidence would support.”
“Non-homophobic, rational and reasonable” is what we’ve been arguing about. And a fundamentally dishonest and/or ignorant argument like that fails the reasonability test. America is NOT based on absolute majority rules; that’s a simple fact. And if they refuse to say that they also want to eliminate everything else the majority disapproves of, then they are lying and don’t actually believe in the principle that they are claiming. Which isn’t reasonable either.
And most important of all, WHY does the majority oppose SSM? Because they are homophobic! So that isn’t a non-homophobic argument at all; it’s an attempt to legitimize it.
If your claim is that there’s no rational argument for banning SSM that also has no applicability in other areas, then I agree with your claim.
No, no – he’s saying that majority rule is how it should work. He doesn’t claim it always does work that way; he says that because he approves of the concept, he will always lend his support to the majority position.
No, because that’s true regardless of whether SSM is supported or not.
No, he understands the constitution; he just feels that majority rule is a good system upon which to base his personal decisions. And it’s not wishful tinking, because he doesn’t contend his wishes are actually true.
See my Feynman commentary above. It seems to me you’ve gone from asking for a rationally-based argument to asking for an argument that can withstand any objection.
But, curiously enough, it never seems to offend gay blacks…
Quite a few racists pointed to their belief in God to excuse their bigotry, too. I’m not personally of the opinion that this was a valid excuse for their bigotry, and to no great surprise, I feel the same way about homophobia. Many religions do teach homophobic ideas. But it is the choice of every individual worshiper to cleave to those ideas or not. Someone who believes that God disapproves of homosexuality has, at some point in their life, decided to adopt that belief, just as the baser kind of bigot has chosen to adopt theirs.
But lots of people in the '50s and ‘60s were putting forward (what they saw as) a compelling secular interest in restricting blacks’ rights. What’s so different about gay rights?
I disagree. The religious and the secular are exactly the same issue: Is it just to treat someone as an inferior due to a characteristic that is both harmless, and innate? And the answer, in both religious and secular terms, is that it is indefensible.
But you haven’t shown any difference between the two! “I don’t like gays,” and “God doesn’t like gays,” are not significantly different statements, because both are reflection of what the speaker believes. The second one merely attempts to relocate the agency of that belief onto a third party.
I never said they hated or feared me. I said they were homophobes.
Well, I wouldn’t personally call that “rational”, but if that’s what he wants, that’s his right. He’ll indeed end up being opposed to SSM not out of bigotry or homophobia but spinelessness. uh… yay?
I haven’t really gone from anywhere to anywhere, actually. All along, when I asked for a “rational argument”, it was for an argument that I couldn’t dismiss out of hand, something I’d have to put a fair amount of thought into challenging and would probably end up using a cost/benefit analysis to overcome.
Well, assuming the argument wasn’t so awesome that I’d actually change sides, of course. It’s not impossible.
When I advanced the idea that there was a possible rational argument against SSM, I intended to convey only that there was an argument that was based on a reason, a rationale, that was free from homophobia or bigotry and had some grounding in reason. “Spinelessness,” while not admirable, qualifies.
What you describe I would call a compelling argument – one that on its surface does not admit to refutation, but requires study or cost-benefit to refute it.
And the argument that causes you to switch I’d call a winning argument. 
In this case, actually, not so much.
But isn’t the “majority rule” argument just another transfer of agency? If “I oppose SSM because I don’t like gay people” is irrational and “I oppose SSM because God doesn’t like gay people” is irrational, how is “I oppose SSM because other people don’t like gay people” rational?
And if you remove the homophobia and reduce the argument to “I oppose SSM because other people oppose SSM”, you end up with a circularity that is itself irrational (“I oppose it because he does, and he opposes it because I do”). Either you’ve dispersed the irrationality onto a large group (their opposition is based on irrational arguments, and mine is based on their opposition), or you’ve fallen into a recursive trap.
Why is it a trap?
It’s true that if everyone followed this method, we’d seldom change any policies. But the holder of this opinion knows that other people don’t share his approach. He knows that other people are moved by other types of arguments, and his reliance on staying with the majority may well cause him to change as the majority changes.
All this plus I do not see how it is opposing SSM to say you think SSM should only be achieved via a majority vote of the population. Seems to me the person is arguing the preferred mechanism for policy change regardless of the policy at issue. As such they are not opposing SSM, they are opposing a variety of means except majority rule to achieve SSM.
So, we are then into a debate of whether majority rule should be the only means for policy change and whether that is rational and/or logical and/or compelling. SSM has dropped off the radar for that so one cannot say this is a rational means of opposing SSM. Not because it is an irrational position but because it is not about SSM.
This, too, represents a movement of the goalposts.
“I oppose SSM.”
“Why? What’s your rational reason? You don’t have one!”
“Sure I do. I support simple majority rule for all policy decisions.”
“Well, that’s not just about SSM; you have that view for all issues.”
“Yes, I do. And one of them is SSM.”
If you now come along and say that the “rational reason” has to apply only to SSM and not to any other issue… then, yes, I agree that there is no rational reason to oppose SSM that is unique to SSM and doesn’t apply to any other issue.
Don’t think that was quite the original focus, but I’m happy to agree with the modified point.
I’d say that person does not oppose SSM as presumably they are fine with it if it is achieved via a majority vote. As posited (correct me if I have this wrong) this person is agnostic about SSM. They are opposing other means than majority rule to effect a change in the law…not the thing itself.
Correct. They are agnostic about SSM itself. But they oppose SSM at present solely because the majority also does.
This does not follow.
We said this person is agnostic on the issue but let’s assume the person has to go vote on SSM.
They are in the polling booth, what do they do?
You say they “oppose” SSM because the majority does so does the person vote against SSM because the majority (they assume) is opposed to it? That is their reason? If so I would say that is an irrational reason.
Do they vote “no” for another reason? If so we are back into our earlier discussions of what that reason may be and so far we have seen none that are rational.
Do they vote for it and then are ok whatever the results since the majority spoke? If so they are pro-SSM but content to let the majority decide policy whatever the outcome.
He didn’t bring up the availability of procreative options. You did:
As I pointed out at the time, I can’t think of any other reasonable interpretation of “ways either intimate or remote” than modern “artificial” means of procreation. Can you?
I don’t think such cases exist, though divorces have been granted on the grounds of barrenness.
It’s a trap if everyone follows this method.
If everyone does not follow this method, then others are basing their opposition to SSM on irrational arguments (assuming that the other arguments are irrational, since we haven’t identified any rational ones) and the holder is basing his opposition on the others’ views. In short, he is outsourcing his irrational reasoning to the others.
You may well argue that basing one’s opinion on majority will regardless of the reasoning of the others that make up that majority constitutes a sufficiently separate argument for it to function as intrinsically rational, but clearly I disagree. To paraphrase my mother: if the majority march off a cliff it is still not rational for you to do likewise.
Bricker, don’t you think that the fact that you have to invent an imaginary person and go on to imagine what this person might believe, rather than point to anybody, *anybody *living in the world of reality who either does or could believe that, undermines your claim that the position you’re imagining is a “rational” one?
If you can not only invent a position and invent a basis for it, but you have to, then you don’t have an argument. Sorry to break it to you, Counselor.
It’s certainly not an opposition argument based on homophobia. It’s also one I haven’t heard ever used, but I guess we are talking in the realm of possibilities here.
I’m not sure it is an internally consistent reason though (however I am not sure it isn’t either). If the statement were “the legislature should not pass laws permitting gay marriage because the majority does not” it would be perfectly plausible. The problem I am having is that it abstracts the individual, and his decision on any issue, from the populace of which he is a member. It’s self defeating to the extent that if it applies to every member of the population, there isn’t a possible decision to be made.
Doesn’t a method for determining a position have to produce a result if everyone follows it for it to be rational and reasonable? Self interest, veil of ignorance, tossing a coin… all these the whole population can do and we can come to some kind of decision. But if everyone says “I support or oppose issue X depending on what the majority opinion on decision X is” then no one will be able to have an opinion on decision X.
I’m coming down to thinking this isn’t reasonable/rational, not because it is a bloody stupid way to determine the rights and wrongs of an issue (which I am sure you would agree it is) but because it doesn’t work internally.
Yes, but by that standard “I flipped a coin and it came up Heads” is also a reason and a rationale, at least in the eyes of the person who lets a coil-flip determine his stance on SSM or any other issue. I don’t see it as a case of goalpost-moving to clarify that when I ask for a “reasonable argument”, it’s one based on some line of “reasoning” that might possibly convince a “reasonable” person.
It is a very interesting argument–and I have to say, better than any of the other ones I’ve heard offered. So I’ll give you that.
However, to me, this isn’t a reason to oppose something–but instead, I see it as a rule of decision. It is a way to figure out if you oppose something or not–and one that abrogates any need to come up with a reason on your own, or to test it.
So I would point out three issues with it. I’m not even sure they’re fatal—but I find them troubling.
First, I hope you see that this cannot be generalized. Literally, you cannot posit that a majority of the population could reasonably reach a decision using this method, because then (1) either that majority could not decide how to think–because they would look to the majority to find out how to think, but they are the majority (and haven’t decided yet), or (2) if, instead, they look to the majority of those who have an opinion, you risk having a very small minority drive their decision–so, (hypothetically), if 60% of the population used your method, the “majority” who would drive their decision would be 20.1% of the population–a majority of those who held an opinion on the issue). Further, if they choose (2) rather than (1), the more people who endorse your method, the less reasonable their decision is–if more people who use this method, fewer people are left to have their opinions looked to–and a smaller “majority” will control the choice of those using your method. Further, if we contend your method is reasonable, it seems more likely it is that those not using it are unreasonable–such that it compels them to make their decision based on the opinion of a small, and perhaps unreasonable minority.
(2) seems inconsistent with the reason for holding this stance (that you look to the majority)–since the more popular it is, the more it compels you to make your decision based on the stance of a small minority. and (1) is, of course, no use in making a decision. Hence, at the least, this justification cannot, by definition, be the reason a majority opposes same-sex marriage.
Second, it seems to me that the real reason at work here is that held by the majority to whom our voter looks-- (if you assume that the majority holds an opinion for a reason)–just like as if I say I will agree with the next thing you say: is my position then reasonable? It is if the next thing you say is reasonable, and is not if it isn’t.
To put it another way: I would argue that a rule of decision that compels you to follow a certain line of reasoning, or to decide in a certain way, even if that line of reasoning or decision is unreasonable, or just plain wrong, is not in itself reasonable.
So I would either argue (narrowly), that the reasonableness of holding this position must turn on the reasonableness of the justification(s) held by those you look to to make the decision, or (broadly) the method is unreasonable because it involves no examination of those justifications, or the position held by a majority–such that it would not just permit, but compel you to adopt an unreasonable decision or plainly wrong answer if held by the majority.
Third, and relatedly, sometimes the majority is just plain unreasonable. Sometimes they ignore the evidence. Evolution is a good example. (Assuming I recall the statistics correctly) A substantial minority of Americans actively reject evolution, and only a minority in fact “believe” it to be correct. (and we can think of many more examples). Now, you and I both know that evolution is just plain scientific fact.
So, if someone using your proposed method was deciding whether evolution was correct, he would ask whether a majority so believes. Given that the answer to that question is no (since a majority is either “no” or “don’t know”–and hence only a minority would vote “yes”), someone using your method would have to vote “no.” Significantly, that decision will be made independently of, and in fact in spite of the evidence on the issue.
Let us, for example, assume that your decisionmaker was a professor of biology-someone who is familiar with the scientific literature, and the evidence for evolution. If he followed your proposed argument, and voted against evolution, he would be knowingly voting for a position that was inconsistent with all the evidence on the issue. Even if he didn’t know the evidence himself, he would be taking a position whether or not it was factually supported.
And I would contend that it is unreasonable to do so–to use a means of decision that would force you to take a position contrary to compelling evidence, simply because a majority doesn’t understand that evidence, or is unreasonably interpreting it.