Argumentative Philosophy: Can There Exist Negative Arguments?
By: Shruti Dubey
Tags: Philosophy, Law, Morality, Life, Education

Say you’re in a trolley car. You’re the driver, and at the end of the track you see five workers in your path. The mechanics fail, your brakes don’t work, you lose control and you are heading straight for the workers who are about to be run over to death.

You have two choices: run in to the five workers, or swerve to a side track that’s about to approach a few metres ahead, but in doing so run in to one worker who would be in your path if you chose the latter option. [1]

What would you do?

John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism claims individuals should make decisions that will lead to the greatest benefit for society as an aggregate whole. In maximising utility, you put pleasure over pain and happiness over sorrow. In simple terms:

“Greatest good for the greatest number.” [1]

The logical thing to do in this situation is to divert your path and choose the option that would cause one death over five. One family grieving instead of five. One family compensated for their loss instead of five. Obviously, this would lead to the least grief caused in this situation, and the least cost to the economy as a whole.

The thing about philosophy is not only asking what are the possibilities of certain situations and how they relate to morality, it is also dissecting the reasoning behind certain sets of arguments put forth by philosophers of the past, and in doing so coming up with our own definitions of what is right and wrong and logical and insensible.

In ‘An Introduction to Political Philosophy’ by Jonathan Wolff, the introduction argues whether governments should have the political right to control human beings — to subject us to punishment and justify their powers in doing so. He then delves into how Hobbes states society would be if a government system didn’t exist; if, as he puts it, we were in a ‘state of nature’. Its counterpart, the ‘Law of Nature’, is then put forth in order to explain how, if humans were to be in our natural state, the constants of violence and fear would understate the freedom we have for making our own laws — as every one else who is ‘free’ would want to do the same thing. [2]

In ‘Freakonomics’, authors Levitt and Dubner states that humans are motivated by incentives. [3] This basic law of behavioural economics means that, in a state of nature, every one would do what benefits them the most, as each and every individual would have their own moral codes to abide by, and as a result go to the utmost distance to fulfil their need to satisfy their own sense of individualism.

About our political system, made up of governments and intergovernmental organisations, Hobbes argues that our great advantage is that:

“it creates conditions under which people can securely follow the Laws of Nature.”

With just a few pages into Wolff’s novel, I am already presented with an array of arguments that question the very basics of my beliefs. It is true that philosophy, instead of providing us with set and logical reasoning as to satisfy our questions to the variety of ambiguous concepts forming humanity — such as morality and right — often only makes us more confused. As Micheal Sandel, the lecturer leading the Harvard series on ‘Justice’, says:

“Philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.”

Nevertheless, curiosity persists.

Linking back to the trolley car case: what’s the right thing to do?

With there being ‘consequentialist moral reasoning’ and ‘categorical moral reasoning’, whether one identifies morality with what would happen if a certain action is taken, or place morality in certain duties and rights and overlook its possible results, is entirely subjective.

With this ‘fact’, we can plead that everything ever created is subjective. The notion of objectivity is also, in fact, a subjective notion.

By delving in to morally contradicting arguments, and in the process forming our own arguments, we are able to cross boundaries by not taking things at face value. It’s essential that our own opinions are constantly being formed and changed on subject matters that may or may not make sense to us.

The fact that such variety can exist when approaching a concept blows my mind. In fact, this fact is perhaps the only fact about which I’m completely sure of.

When a person refutes a claim, a negative argument is said to be formed. However, with something as obscure as philosophy, can there even exist such as thing as the right answer?

I can spend years arguing a philosophy. What would I achieve at the end — if there is one — of it?

For example, take death. We all have our own beliefs on what happens when we die: reincarnation, the afterlife etc. Even so, this topic is only viewed from the perspective of the living. What does it matter chasing after a question that can never be answered? [4]

It seems futile at times — to think. But I believe we all have our reasons for doing so. I, for one, derive extreme annoyance when things are ambiguous to me. As do many other people. But I also find it entertaining; hence why I take Literature for A Levels.

Saying that things are black and white, but also realising that shades of grey exist in our morally ambiguous and subjective world, may not be enough. It’s essential that we dive into the why and how of things .

But then again, that’s what I think :)

For me, what I believe is the basis of philosophy is presented by this quote from Wolff:

“In short, studying how things are helps to explain how things can be, and studying how they can be is indispensable for assessing how they ought to be.”

-Shree

[1] Harvard University (2009) Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY.

[2] Wolff, J. (2006). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.

[3] Levitt, S.D. & Dubner, S.J. (2009). Freakonomics. New York, NY: HarperCollins, pp. 16.

[4] Mason, J (2012), Death and Its Concept, https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/17-death-and-its-concept