www. Radical New Thoughts .com

Implicit Premises

A question: If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Did you think "five?" This riddle is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, whose answer was, "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one." We are easily sucked into accepting the implicit premises of a question. In this case, the premise is that calling a tail a leg makes it one.

A question: Have you stopped beating your children?

This is an old joke. It is a yes-or-no question, but you don't want to answer either way, because a yes or a no makes it sound like you're confirming the premise that you beat your kids. This trick is certainly not limited to riddles and jokes, however, so let's look at a more serious example.

A question: Should we promote democracy around the world using only peaceful means, or should we use force to create democracies when necessary?

Now we are getting more subtle. Most Americans would never notice or challenge the premise hidden in this question. The specific premise I'm referring to is that democracy is a good idea. The idea is so much a part of the debate that not one in a hundred would stop to say, "Should we even be promoting democracy at all? Is it really a good system? What does it mean?"

This is how you think about things in new and better ways. You identify and challenge implicit premises, and look for better ones. Challenging them doesn't necessarily mean rejecting them, though. For example, after challenging the above you might still decide that it is good to promote democracy.

Of course Hitler was elected by a democracy, Socrates was put to death by the people's vote for teaching young men to think, and pure democracy is essentially mob rule. Does a majority vote make any atrocity okay? Perhaps democracy shouldn't be a form of government at all, but only a useful tool for electing political leaders. Maybe a good system doesn't allow for these leaders to be "mob rule enforcers" but limits them to protecting individual human rights and administering a government with this same goal.

By the way, this is getting at the "root" of things, isn't it? That's what makes it "radical" thought. My bias certainly shows in my examples, but however you feel about the issue, isn't it clear that the question of whether democracy is a good idea is more fundamental and should be settled before arguing about how to best promote it? Identify and challenge those implicit premises!

Observing Arguments

Have you ever listened to a good debate or argument where both sides seem very reasonable? If you don't already have a strong opinion on the matter, you get drawn in by the logic each side uses. Whatever you decide about whose arguments are stronger or what good points were made, something else happens. You unconsciously come to accept the common premises of the debate.

For example, if you watch a good discussion about what the government should do about health care, you might hear good and bad ideas, but what else happens? You miss the fact that it's all based on the premise that government should do something in this area. Did you actually settle in your mind that government's proper role includes designing our health care, or did you just absorb this implicit premise from the debates and discussions around you?

I was watching a couple politicians debate whether gays and lesbians should be legally allowed to get married. I listened to their arguments, but I like to "read between the lines" as well. More specifically, I like to identify what they are actually agreeing on, the implicit premises they share. Then I question those, to see if they are valid in my mind.

In this case, the implicit premise both sides share is that marriage is something a government should be involved in. I thought about this. I don't agree. I think it's actually offensive that anyone should require the "permission" of a government to marry. My radical solution, then, is to have no legal marriage at all. You can see my explanation on the page Gay Marriage - A Solution.

Logical Doesn't Mean Correct

Many people don't realize that common ground is necessary for any logical debate. A wolf and a rabbit can't have a rational debate about whether grass or bunnies are better food. They share no common premises about what makes food good. On the other hand, two kids can argue about whether Santa Claus is really fat or thin (how does he fit down that chimney?), because they both believe in Santa and have some common ideas about him.

Now this latter example is chosen specifically because the premise of Santa's existence is incorrect. The debate can be logical, or at least can be more logical on one side or the other (thin seems to win). Logic is confined to the argument itself, however. It says nothing about the premises it is built on. This is an important point if you want to have more creative, radical, and correct thoughts.

Is a man morally right or wrong if he steals to feed his family? How about his dog? You might want more information on this scenario to decide. Then you could reach a logical conclusion. For example, if your moral code says stealing is immoral, and you decide that this is stealing, the man is wrong. But your moral code could also be wrong, in which case perfect logic leads to a perfectly incorrect conclusion.

Two men might argue the issue, but share certain premises, such as "we are capable of determining who is immoral; we should label people moral or immoral, and; moral means... (whatever they agree on). To participate, even as an observer, you accept these unspoken terms of the argument. That leaves you simply judging the logic of the debaters.

This process hides questions such as, "Is it even useful to label people or even actions as immoral?" (We could certainly put criminals in prison for our own safety without morally judging them.) "How did I arrive at these moral beliefs?" (Are they correct simply because they came from ancestors or "moral authorities?") "What if I only thought of my own actions in moral terms, and dealt with others from another perspective?"

By the way, I think it is useful to judge actions in moral terms, and I am not suggesting that we have to accept any alternative premises. I do think it helps us to understand things better if we ask the questions, though, and it sometimes leads to new ideas. Get outside the "box" created by the argument and see what else there is to look at. The best argument in the box may still be wrong if the whole box is wrong.

Identify The Implicit Premises - An Exercise

Think about each of the following questions for a few moments. See if you can identify some of the implicit premises in them. Consider whether you believe those premises and whether there are alternatives you can imagine. Also think about what other questions might be obscured by the resulting debate.

1. What is the best way to improve yourself?

2. Does nature or nurture determine who we are?

3. Is socialism or capitalism better for the Earth?

4. Is it better to have a job or a business?

Until next time,

Steve

www.RadicalNewThoughts.com