I'm currently reading "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. If any book describes how the common German became engaged with the Nazi party, this is it. In many aspects, it's startlingly... normal.
At this moment, we're in the heart of the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic. Pretty much everywhere has a mask mandate in place.
Some, myself included, are concerned about this intrusion into our liberties. Most of society, however, is quick to judge and call anyone who doesn't wear a mask "selfish," that wearing a mask is compassionate, and if you don't wear one, then you're obviously not.
There are many principles being breached here including an unwillingness to seek understanding, haste in judgment, victimhood, inappropriate assignment of responsibility, inconsistency in risk assessment, and more.
However, what I wish to focus on at the moment is the need for principles to be our guide rather than opinions or emotions.
Many individuals concerned about liberty are using a "slippery-slope" type argument. e.g. "today it's mandated masks, tomorrow it's mandated vaccines." Logically, this argument on its own is a logical fallacy.
Quoting from Your Logical Fallacy Is .com:
"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."
By using this argument/fallacy, we're allowing the discussion to be based on "where's the appropriate line?" In other words, we're focused on the position, not the principle.
From a principled perspective--principles of liberty, that is--mask mandates are a breach of appropriate government powers. Mandated vaccines would be as well. And while one may seem more sever than another in consequence and extent, from the perspective of principles, they are no different. If you don't believe one shouldn't be mandated because freedom, then you will be in a logically self-contradicting state to also believe that the other should be mandated because safety. You may not realize it, and you may rationalize it, but when you look at and understand the principles, it becomes clear.
Circling back, the experiences in Nazi Germany were certainly a slippery slope. Each little item was justified because "it wasn't so bad," even if the person wasn't totally comfortable with it, until it got to the point that there was nothing they could do about it. If they had stood on principle from the beginning, there would never have approached the slope. Easy to say in hindsight, harder to say when we're in the middle of living it.
Am I saying that mask mandates are the path to becoming like the Nazi party? No, certainly not. I am saying that they go against principle, and the more that happens, the more our liberty is compromised.
When arguments are discussed, the strongest presentations will be built on principles, not positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment