Enemy of Entropy

Archive for 14 August 2008

TotD: Suggested Rules for Democratic Discourse

14 August 2008, 11:55 pm. 1 Comment. Filed under Thought of the Day.

Sid­ney Hook, sug­gested rules for demo­c­ra­tic dis­course, from “The Ethics of Con­tro­versy,” Sid­ney Hook on Prag­ma­tism, Democ­racy and Free­dom: The Essen­tial Essays:

  • Noth­ing and no one is immune from criticism.
  • Every­one involved in a con­tro­versy has an intel­lec­tual respon­si­bil­ity to inform him­self of the avail­able facts.
  • Crit­i­cism should be directed first to poli­cies, and against per­sons only when they are respon­si­ble for poli­cies, and against their motives or pur­poses only when there is some inde­pen­dent evi­dence of their character.
  • [Just] Because cer­tain words are legally per­mis­si­ble, they are not there­fore morally permissible.
  • Before impugn­ing an opponent’s motives, even when they legit­i­mately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
  • Do not treat an oppo­nent of a pol­icy as if he were there­fore a per­sonal enemy of the coun­try or a con­cealed enemy of democracy.
  • Since a good cause may be defended by bad argu­ments, after answer­ing the bad argu­ments for another’s posi­tion present pos­i­tive evi­dence for your own.
  • Do not hes­i­tate to admit lack of knowl­edge or to sus­pend judg­ment if evi­dence is not deci­sive either way.
  • Only in pure logic and math­e­mat­ics, not in human affairs, can one demon­strate that some­thing is strictly impos­si­ble. Because some­thing is log­i­cally pos­si­ble, it is not there­fore prob­a­ble. “It is not impos­si­ble” is a pref­ace to an irrel­e­vant state­ment about human affairs. The ques­tion is always one of the bal­ance of prob­a­bil­i­ties. And the evi­dence for prob­a­bil­i­ties must include more than abstract possibilities.
  • The car­di­nal sin, when we are look­ing for truth of fact or wis­dom of pol­icy, is refusal to dis­cuss, or action which blocks discussion.

 

Powered by WebRing.