The Ethics of Argument (with special reference to the Rapoport Rules)

Abstract

How should one respond to an argument that one believes to be wrong, or egregiously wrong? The question is relevant to academic writers of all kinds, to scientists, to lawyers and judges, to politicians, and to many more. A proposed answer comes from the Rapoport Rules, which require something like a preliminary doff of the cap, or even a bow, in the form of a vivid, charitable statement of the argument that one is addressing, alongside an emphasis on what one accepts in it, and on what one has learned from it. The Rapoport Rules are most naturally defended in Kantian terms, as a way of showing respect for one's target. They are also kind. They reject what Daniel Kahneman called "angry science." They lower the volume and take down the temperature. On utilitarian grounds, there is a self-interested argument for following the Rapoport Rules, if one's goal is to persuade people; doing so might make both opponents and readers more likely to trust what one is saying, and more likely to like the person who is saying it, and so more likely to accept one's claims. From the social point of view, the Rapoport Rules might also be taken as an effort to establish norms from which all or most benefit; they might solve or reduce a collective action problem. Widespread adoption of the Rapoport Rules might well led to better understanding and more in the way of truth. Still, it must be said that some audiences are more likely to enjoy, and to be persuaded by, arguments that slash and burn. It must also be said that if the goal is to get clear on what is true, slashing and burning have their place. A preliminary doff of the cap, or a bow, may not make much sense in the face of palpable mistakes of logic or fact (or in the face of egregious misrepresentations or bad faith). Still, there is a reasonable argument for a presumption in favor of the Rapoport Rules in academic circles, in judicial opinions, and in legal briefs. There is also a reasonable argument for a presumption in favor of understatement and kindness, rather than "angry science."

Keywords: Rapoport Rules, angry science, civility, norms, rhetoric