With this posting, I continue my effort to present to
educators a way of viewing and judging arguments. This is particularly aimed at civics
educators, but I think it can be helpful to all educators and the general
public. In this endeavor, I am using the
ideas of Philip Selznick.[1] He offers us a list of qualities –
disciplines – by which to denote a well-crafted argument. They are order, principle, experience,
prudence, and dialogue. The last posting
reviewed order. This posting will expand
on principle.
At times, some might argue that the emphasis of pragmatic
thinking radicalizes the practical and therefore, accuses it of being
principle-less. The whole notion is that
pragmatism in its arguments utilizes means that will lead to ends and will,
when attained, render those ends as new means to further sought after ends and
on and on. Under such a mode of
argumentation, there are no ultimate ends and thus no principles. Selznick argues that this is but a parody of
pragmatist philosophy. He points out
that its main proponents, John Dewey and William James, were much ensconced in
seeking ultimate goals, in ultimate principles.
And those principles had to do with moral foundational ends such as
justice. They pursued those values –
ends – that facilitate cooperation. As I
have argued, a pragmatic way to view principles of justice and fairness,
liberty and equality are as essential qualities that allow, in continuous
fashion, productive interaction between people.
It is when these qualities are not kept, that the motivation for discord
occurs and, if not remedied, encourages serious discord that can be
sustained.
But these are not the usual sought after ends. In civic or governmental operations, usually
we are engaged in seeking more immediate ends, such as whether we should construct
a street or fix a water main or provide some governmental service. It is only when we string together a long
lists of “shoulds,” logically tying one to the other, that we arrive at justice
and fairness. It is in this light that I
present federalist theory with the trump value of societal welfare and key
instrumental values such as liberty and equality.[2] These are ultimate or near ultimate ends.
And these types of values – though often not at a conscious
level or somewhat taken for granted – are the ends that govern and guide us as
to which issues are important and which resolutions are legitimate. Therefore, principles which include these are
essential parts of good argument and when judging whether an argument has merit
or not, one can ask about these ends, particularly when they are not stated or
immediately discernable. In other words,
they are thought of when “something smells rotten in Denmark.”
[1] Selznick, P.
(1992). The moral commonwealth: Social
theory and the promise of community.
Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
[2] These are values I have identified in previous
postings. By way of reminding you, here is a listing of these values:
• Trump Value: Societal welfare (as experienced through
societal survival and advancement)
• Key Instrumental Values: constitutional integrity (liberty), equality,
communal democracy, democratic pluralism and diversity, compacted arrangements,
critical and transparent deliberation, collective problem-solving, earned
trust, loyalty, patriotism, expertise
• Operational Values (partial listing): political engagement, due process, legitimate
authority, privacy, universality of human rights, tolerance, non-violence,
teamwork, consideration of others, economic sufficiency, security, localism3
As can be noted, lower level values are
logically derived from higher level values.
These values, other than the trump value, are not presented as a
definitive set of values, but the code is fairly tied into the trump and
instrumental values as central to its theoretical base – federalist theory.
