The Remedy for a Common Logical Fallacy
Intellectual charity and humility are the cure for what ails our public discourse.
A while back someone sent this comment my way:
I would love for you to write on dialoguing with folks who profess to recognize you as a believer in Christ, but then speak to and about you as if you are either unwittingly evil or deeply ignorant and foolish.
Last fall I wrote about a specific logical fallacy that undermines our dialogue and discourse on controversial issues. This fallacy relates to the comment above, in some ways. In this post, I’ll share about a related fallacy, and then discuss some intellectual virtues that can help us do better. I’ll also offer some advice on dealing with fellow Christians who speak and act in these ways.
The Attitude to Agent Fallacy
First, consider the Attitude to Agent Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when we attribute ignorance, foolishness, or even evil to a person, without sufficient evidence. This happens when someone makes an inference from a belief that a person holds to a negative claim about the person herself. We see this kind of thing in political discussions these days. A lot. It shuts down debate, and only deepens the divisions we have. And it doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.
Here is how Nate King and Robert Garcia explain this fallacy, and an example they share:
Surprisingly, distinguished thinkers sometimes commit the attitude-to-agent fallacy. In his foundational work, A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke argued for interreligious charity, and against religiously motivated torture and coercion. In so doing, he set the tone for centuries of discussion between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Sadly, atheists were not accorded the same charity as religious folks. In Locke’s words:
“Those are not to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of a God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”
Locke begins with the observation that some people believe that there’s no God. According to Locke, however, if this belief is correct – if there is no God – then morality is seriously undermined. As he sees it, the absence of God entails something repugnant – that humans have no moral obligations. Locke then attributes the latter belief to atheists. In other words, on a plausible reading, Locke seems to be alleging that if a person believes there is no God, then she must also believe that there are no moral obligations. On his view, morality can “have no hold” on such a person. The last move, clearly, is a direct attitude-to-agent inference.
The mistake here is that the conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. The following inference, from (1) to (2), is flawed:
(1) Richard is an atheist.
Therefore,
(2) Richard does not believe humans have any moral obligations to each other.
One need not (and unless given more evidence should not) infer from the fact that a person is an atheist that that person also believes we have no moral obligations. An atheist can consistently believe that there is no God, and that human beings have moral obligations to one another. There are numerous philosophical debates about how this might or might not work. There are different ways of grounding moral claims, on both theism and atheism. Those debates are vital. But sadly they get shut down when we commit the attitude to agent fallacy.
Or consider how Christians talk about politics:
“You are not a genuine Christian if you vote for [insert the candidate or political party you despise here].”
“All members of the [insert despised political party here] are foolish and evil.”
“If you believe [insert a political, moral, or religious issue here] then you are more concerned with what other people think about you than being faithful to Christ.”
There are things and people that Christians should never vote for or support. We can be overly concerned about how others view us, rather than focusing on faithfulness to Christ. The problem is that the above statements are applied much too broadly, and much too quickly, without sufficient evidence. Denigration shuts down fruitful discussion. Conversations devolve into character assassinations. Rhetorical violence replaces rigorous thought. The truth is neither discovered nor even sought. Nobody is helped.
There is a better way.
How Intellectual Virtues Can Help
Intellectual charity is a disposition to desire intellectual goods for others, and to attribute as much good will and intelligence to them as is reasonable to do. When others attribute ignorance or foolishness (or worse) to us, and we to them, this is a failure of intellectual charity. The attitude to agent fallacy is uncharitable. We wouldn’t want people to draw such unwarranted conclusions about us, and so we should avoid doing the same about them. We should consider the traits and attitudes we attribute to others, and make sure we have good grounds for those attributions. When we don’t, or aren’t sure that we do, we should refrain from doing so. In intellectual charity, we should ask them questions, seek clarifications, and express curiosity rather than condemnation.
Intellectual humility involves an awareness of our intellectual limitations, and taking them into account as we reason, read, reflect, and discuss issues with others. Humility counsels us to realize that maybe I’m the one who is missing something, reasoning poorly, missing some key facts, etc. Maybe I could learn something from others here. Perhaps they know more than I do, are reasoning better, and could help me see the light. Humility welcomes such help.
Back to the Question
So what should you do when “folks speak to and about you as if you are either unwittingly evil or deeply ignorant and foolish”? I’ve had people say and do this kind of thing to me, both fellow Christians and those who don’t share my faith. The following are some ideas that I’ve found to be helpful.
First, model the intellectual virtues, discussed above, and many more. Consider whether you are in fact foolish or ignorant. I recently posted something on Facebook, and a few people pointed out some errors of fact in the post. They did so charitably and kindly, and I ended up taking the post down. I resisted at first, but then realized they were right. My point is that in this case, I was in fact ignorant, and others helped me see that. But these days, charges of ignorance, foolishness, and evil get thrown around much more than is warranted. The intellectual virtues can help. I’ve found that as I express curiosity about what others think, and why they think what they do, it has a calming influence and leads to more fruitful discussion. When I move into confrontation or debate mode, discussion either shuts down or becomes polarized and divisive, rather than a mutual quest for truth and wisdom. On the intellectual virtues, Nathan King’s The Excellent Mind: Intellectual Virtues for Everyday Life is an excellent and helpful resource to explore and apply.
Second, practice rhetorical nonviolence. When reviled, do not revile in return (1 Peter 2:23). This is the example Jesus set for us. We should follow it. Easy to say. Hard to do. But that’s our call.
Finally, and sadly, fruitful discussion is not always possible. If someone is engaging in character assassination against you, it is okay to tell them so, and ask them to stop. They may do so. They may not. You may arrive at the point with someone where it is best to simply say, "I don’t think our discussion is helping either of us or anyone else in the pursuit of knowledge and deeper understanding. It really isn’t possible to have dialogue on ideas when there is not a foundational agreement on how we ought to talk to one another, or how we ought to argue in good faith. So I’m going to bow out. If you want to have the last word, feel free to take it."
I’ve had to do this, mostly with online conversation partners. In real life, I think having to do this kind of thing is more rare, but can still be needed. It is often harder for many of us to dismiss someone’s arguments or character in a face-to-face conversation. Keyboard courage is real, but it is actually a form of cowardice. Yet whether online or in real life, setting clear boundaries is a wise and good thing to do. This can be an act of humility. We realize our limits, and set boundaries that reflect them. Ultimately, this will help us in our pursuit of wisdom and knowledge for the sake of Christ. We’ll have more time and energy to engage in those pursuits, rather than expending so much of ourselves in fruitless and frustrating discussions.
Much of the above is from “Getting Our Minds Out of the Gutter: Fallacies that Foul Our Discourse (and Virtues that Clean it Up),” by Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King, in Virtues in Action: New Essays in Applied Virtue Ethics, pp. 190-206.