HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT
or Can we defend values?

Note: This writing comes off very pedantic, like I'm standing on high and telling you "this is how you should do things." I am aware of that, and I don't mean for it to come off as such, but I'm still trying to "find my voice," so to speak, so this is how I'm writing now. I'm sure at some point in the future I will revisit this topic, and it will be written better than it currently is. The idea is there, I'm saying what I want to say, just not how I want to say it. My apologies. - Nimh

Whenever you start an argument about something, listen very carefully to the way the individual constructs their argument, or in life generally, listen to what they're saying. When people say anything, hidden under the surface of what they're saying are going to be several underlying assumptions. An argument is constructed overlying several assumptions that are implicit in the statement, and the key to breaking down an argument (or understand what someone is ACTUALLY saying) is to understand what their assumptions are, and then decide for yourself whether those assumptions are valid or not. For example, regarding homosexuality:

Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.

There are several assumptions implicit in this statement. First, that homosexuality is unnatural. A first step of response may be to argue about what defines "natural." You could point that homosexuality occurs in nature, and that animals engage in it all the time. There was an article I read recently about penguins at a zoo being engaged in a homosexual relationship. Second, that if it is natural, it is right. We could then ask if they would throw out all the technology they have because it is unnatural, assuming we'd define "natural" to mean something that would exclude technology and homosexuality. Lastly, you could then ask if it making it wrong means you shouldn't do it (although that assumption isn't implicit in the statement). You might be able to conjure up a few scenarios where no one gets hurt by doing what both of you agree is "wrong."

I want to go back to the second assumption (if it is natural, it is right, and vice versa). This is the underlying value in the statement. The first assumption is merely the result of a definition. It's rather objective, once you've defined your terms. However, once you move past that, you move into the rather shaky area of arguing values. How does one defend or attack values?

Well, if you're God-fearing, or your opponent is God-fearing, the argument is over. My belief is that there is no "all-seeing eye" that dictates its values to us and tells us how to live. People who believe that or claim that are misguided, in my humble opinion, and by doing so, they aren't taking the time to sit and decide for themselves what is really important. The only thing I believe we can claim is that the universe values all things equally. This idea is rather Buddhist in nature, but I'm not a Buddhist, nor do I really know that much about it. This is from my own experience. But where do you build a moral basis from that?

Philosophical (or really, any) arguments seems to bottom out at some difference of an underlying assumption. For example, I had an argument regarding sex and abortion, and our argument bottomed out, conceptually, how much personal responsibility a person should take for something occurring that has a very low percentage of happening, or how far into the future someone should be responsible for their decisions? Any decision to do anything has to be built up some from underlying assumptions, and lays the foundation for your entire life philosophy. So if we assume that the universe has no values, where do we begin? To truly begin, you need to identify your underlying assumptions of "how the world works", and set them aside. They may be useful later, but to start off, you need to eliminate them so you can look at them from an outside perspective, scrutinizing them, and truly deciding for yourself which are important and why.

But before that, how do we build a method for dealing with morality? We have to start somewhere, and build up. This is the problem I came upon and stumbled over several times before deciding what suits me. To give an example of what I mean by building a morality, I'll explain the thought process that went through my head as I tried to build my own.

When I began, I had a few things that I believed that I needed to be consistent. I believe, for example, that our fundamental relationship with the natural world is failing/flawed. So the next step was to figure out why. What is going on in our morality that would make what we're doing to the environment wrong?

I started with the idea that we're exploiting the natural world for our own benefit without benefiting the natural world at the same time. Whenever anything in the natural world works within its environment, it achieves a natural equilibrium with the surrounding habitat. (Yes, this sounds like The Matrix. Agent Smith is the man. Deal with it.) The species as a whole does its part to maintain itself, and the environment naturally corrects when things get out of balance. We've reached a point where we've so exploited the natural world that the natural world cannot self-correct. We are taking without giving back to the world around us. It was this realization that began to form the basis for my morality: anything that happens has to be mutually beneficial for those involved.

Obviously, anyone else can look at the natural world and pull a completely different morality from it. I feel comfortable with this idea because almost merely because I feel its a valid deduction, given what I see about our relationship to nature. However, that is the underlying assumption I use to try and build my morality.

By deciding on one underlying assumption upon which to build a morality, I hope to make what I feel is moral internally consistent, so I'm not unfairly applying different ideas to different situations, but ultimately, underlying all of it, I have to look at what is beneficial for those involved, and that's what I would like to choose as "right." What is "right" is really only relevant to the underlying assumptions of your world, your reality.

Most arguments will bottom out at certain assumptions, like my other assumption that people are responsible long-term for the results of their actions. The only way to really undermine these assumptions is to draw out their implications through analogy or "reductio ad absurdum." Or maybe try and get at other ideas and thoughts that they have, and point out internal contradictions. These are all rather weak techniques unfortunately, and if the person you're arguing with has pondered his or her set of ideas, you may find yourself hitting a brick wall. However, the initial idea of breaking down what assumptions they're working with and deciding if they make sense is the best way to proceed when making an argument.

(As an aside, as you're trying to break down an argument to its fundamental assumptions, give away as little of your own position and assumptions as possible. The less your opponent has to work with, the better position you are in. You can also seek to redefine the debate so that you're working with material that suits your argument. These are both useful debate tactics. However, the purpose of this was to ponder what underlying assumptions are useful or "true", in some sense of the word, and to talk about how I built my morality.)