Gutenblog

Please follow us via the Gutenberg website. Or on Facebook. Or go directly to the new blog site.

This has never happened. I posted an ethical question on my FB page and it exploded. The responses currently number 43 (with plenty more asking about it “off the record”).

First, here’s what I posted:

I teach students to recognize the difference between good and specious arguments. I just read Frank Miller’s (ad hominem) blog against the Occupiers which is a textbook example of a specious argument. His argument is: Occupiers are lazy “pond scum”; thus, their position is invalid.

My ethical question: Is it morally wrong to promote a specious argument, even if you share the author’s ultimate conclusion? In other words: Suppose you believe the Occupiers’ beliefs are incorrect — is it wrong to use Miller’s argument to support your belief?

The responses were great. Here’s a sampling:

BW: What do you mean by “promote”? Do you mean post it on your FB as something noteworthy or entertaining? Or ask students to read it and respond for a class? Context is all.

I responded that …

To clarify my question. An acquaintance (let’s call him Antiphon) posted, on his FB page, Miller’s ad hominem argument against the Occupiers. He posted it with a brief comment like, “Miller doesn’t like the Occupiers.”
I’m confident of two points: 1) Antiphon doesn’t like the Occupiers and 2) Antiphon’s legal studies trained him to recognize that Miller’s ad hominem argument is hollow. (Some ad hominem arguments are not hollow; Miller’s is.) This leads me to conclude that Antiphon either–
1) posted Miller’s essay out of laziness, not bothering to really attend to the weakness of the argument. I imagine Antiphon thought something like this: “Since Miller agrees with my conviction that Occupiers are idiots why not post this?” Then, *click*.
2) Antiphon knew Miller’s argument was specious, but thought it might convince others. Miller is, after all, the graphic artist of The Dark Knight; he has the sort of cultural caché that can convince.
My question, restated: Are either of the above two reasons morally okay?

Here’s a sampling of the responses:

MS: It strikes me that both of the above conclusions are morally lazy. I think we put up with a lot of moral laziness because it is tempting to us all. However, in light of recent events (Penn State), I think the real danger of moral laziness has been seen. We ought to strive to be better, even in the seemingly inconsequential realms (like posting something glibly on FB), because, if not, we train ourselves to be lazy when it comes to things of serious consequence.

LS: It is illogical to use a specious argument to support an otherwise supportable position. It is unethical to use a knowingly specious argument without disclosing you believe it to be specious.

JW: i guess i better to sit this one out, i had to look up the word specious.

[The following exchange was helpful, I think, so I included the back-and-forth.]
DP: If you think an argument is specious, then you view it as an untruth, a lie. don’t lie.
SM: Wait, there’s a difference between something being incorrect and something being a lie. I call specious!
DP: There’s nothing wrong with being incorrect until it’s intentional.
SM: Yep, that’s true. Although in this case I don’t see Frank Miller as intending to spread untruth–I think he’s just formulated a really poor argument, and is possibly a loon.
DP: Exactly. i’m not judging miller. but i would judge myself, having deemed him incorrect, were i to endorse his view.

Off the record, my friend JRW asked me what prompted me to write the original post. I wrote:

I posted because I’m frustrated. (Aren’t we all?) I’m frustrated because people of integrity — people I admire — complain about the moral state of the culture/nation and see the solution as some sort return to a purer political philosophy (conservatism or liberalism.) In advocating toward that purer (more ethical) political philosophy that they do not speak, post, or write ethically. Yes, I think Antiphon’s posting qualifies as propaganda. And I think Antiphon knew it. But he posted it anyway. I think that was unethical. I think that was bad rhetoric.

These conversations might move to Gutenberg’s Facebook page. See us there if you want to participate in future discussions.