Argumentation ethics and parenting

[Hugh Akston]

Is it ethical (universally preferable behaviour) to use knowledge of or a theory regarding someones parenting history as a tool to win or taint/colour/slant an opponents argument?

[PatrickC]

In terms of UPB this is a question for APA (aesthetically preffered actions) Hugh. It's certainly not violating UPB. As to which category of APA it falls under, then you would have to be more specific about the parenting history, as well their current and practising parenting skills.

[Stephen C]

Is it ethical (universally preferable behaviour) to use knowledge of or a theory regarding someones parenting history as a tool to win or taint/colour/slant an opponents argument?

What comes to mind for me is "Why not just address the argument?"I'd like to hear an example of what you're referring to.

[Pepin]

Like xelent said, it would be a matter of APA as opposed to UPB. In other words, you could not use force against someone who does something that is non-APA.

 

But I really don't feel like that matters because this is about argumentation and the validity of the ad hominem. An ad hominem argument does not focus on the argument being made, yet rather the character of the presenter to "taint/colour/slant/disqualify/discredit" another's argument. Most people who haven't been trained in formal logic think that all uses are invalid due to being irrelevant to the argument, but there are actually a lot of valid uses for it. 

 

If someone is charged of theft and claims not guilty and provides a lot of reason and evidence as to why, the prosecution does not need to address the reason and evidence and can instead focus on the person's previous criminal history and their propensity to lie.

 

If a morbidly obese woman is selling a diet book, to say that the book is a sham, you do not need to make any argument against what is in the book, rather you can just bring up the fact that the woman claims being a healthy weight is good, but either her own plan didn't work out for her, or that she doesn't really believe in arguments or her values. In this case, the person's own actions and current state of being are used to discredit their claims, whereas in the last case knowledge of their previous actions is being used to figure out if there is even value to addressing the argument.

 

In the case of parenting, well it depends. There would be valid and invalid uses of it, and invalid uses would only hurt the argument you are making if you were in front of a semi-rational audience. I do think in personal relationships that invalid and valid uses are much easier for people to identify, whereas in the political sphere, well any argument is about 20% invalid ad hominem. My answer is essentially is if it is a relevant and valid use.

[Hugh Akston]

In terms of UPB this is a question for APA (aesthetically preffered actions) Hugh. It's certainly not violating UPB. As to which category of APA it falls under, then you would have to be more specific about the parenting history, as well their current and practising parenting skills.

 

Perhaps I should have said childhood history?  I've listened to UPB on the radio but must have missed the definition of APA, this term is new to me.  I would understand APA as being something like not swearing in polite conversation, would that be right?

 

So what you are saying is that an ad hominem attack or perhaps even a relevant argument against a formerly abused person using knowledge of that abuse or a suspicion of that abuse is simply a matter of personal taste and not ethics?  Would that not be an indirect way of perpetuating that abuse?

[PatrickC]

So what you are saying is that an ad hominem attack against a formerly abused person using knowledge of that abuse or a suspicion of that abuse is simply a matter of personal taste and not ethics?  Would that not be an indirect way of perpetuating that abuse?

 

Ah, well this is where people make the mistake about UPB. APA can indeed come with consequences for the perpetrator. Ad Hominem may contain some truth about a person or it may not. Somebody who continually lies is probably likely to find himself without too many friends or allies, but he still hasn't violated UPB.

 

Is the action 'enforceable'. That is the UPB test.

[Hugh Akston]

Like xelent said, it would be a matter of APA as opposed to UPB. In other words, you could not use force against someone who does something that is non-APA.

 

I must misunderstand UPB then.  I did not realise that the justification of the use of force was an aspect of UPB.  If I tell a lie would that be UPB or APA?

Is the action 'enforceable'. That is the UPB test.

 

I think you have answered my question.  I will have to give UPB some more thought then as I don't think I understand the crux of the argument.

[Pepin]

I must misunderstand UPB then.  I did not realise that the justification of the use of force was an aspect of UPB.  If I tell a lie would that be UPB or APA?

 

Lying in general would be APA. It isn't UPB because universalizing the statement "people universally ought to lie" can't really work for a number of reasons. The main being, how would anybody know not to lie if nobody can tell the truth that everybody should lie? There is nothing biological or instinctual that would lead someone to the conclusion that lying is UPB, and it is impossible to inform others that lying is UPB without violating the ethical rule. In a way, it is the same as saying "people ought to communicate solely through their psychic powers". Granted psychic powers don't exist, nobody will be able to tell you to communicate through your psychic powers because to do so they must do so through theirs, which just doesn't happen.

 

Now in certain cases, lying would be unethical and force could be used in response, but it isn't the lying that is the cause of the UPB violation yet rather something else. For instance, fraud often composes itself through lies, but it is not APA because it is fundamentally theft and/or a violation of contract. In another instance, if you were to raise a child telling them nothing but lies, yes that would technically just be lying, but the aggression is in intentional brain damage that they are causing.

 

The initiation of force fails the UPB test, but using force to respond against an initiation of force does not. I think the topics are covered pretty well in the book, so I'd recommend giving it a reread. I should probably reread it myself because I've forgotten a lot of the syntax.