The Wall Street Journal of June 17, 2013, featured a section labeled “Squaring Off,” covering six controversies in the field of health care in the United States. This section provides good examples of what we mean by “public argumentation” in CEPA. Some of the issues included were debates over whether hospitals residency programs should be expanded to increase the number of doctors, or whether nurse practitioners should be allowed to treat patients without a physician’s oversight.
As stated in the first blog entry of June 26, CEPA intends to look at arguments on a range of public issues, such as health and medicine. In addition to politics and government, some of these domains (but not all) might include the following:
Law (eminent domain; legal education)
Education (standardized testing; “common core”)
Science and Technology (fracking; renewal of space exploration)
Health and Medicine (immunizations; holistic medicine)
Economics, Business and Commerce (banking regulation; “too big to fail”)
Journalism and Mass Communication (economic control; bias)
Entertainment and Cultural Activities (censorship; public funding)
Of course, we must recognize that there can be a political element to each of these domains. The effects of different educational technologies, for example, can become a political issue when a local school board or state legislature is involved. A scientific question, such as causes and effects of global climate change, can certainly become politically charged. And, so on.
The relevant question for CEPA is how we can analyze the ethics of various arguments advanced in these fields and others. One of the first points at issue could be dealing with the claim that public controversies are about winning, especially for a “good cause.” A person could object to such a claim by saying that this “pragmatic” approach leads to a justification of winning at any cost. But, is that all right? Not always. We would not grant it is OK to use lying and deceitful tactics, at least let’s assume that for present purposes.
Let’s begin by approaching the question from a different direction: What would an unethical argument look like? The “unethical” implies something intentional: the speaker intends to “win the argument” by unfair means or by misleading listeners. Ethical issues come down to intent. The issue therefore could lie in different factors in the speaker or writer’s intent. For example, is an argument unethical if the position being advocated is itself “unethical” as an action or policy? Or, does the “ethics” of the matter reside in the evidence or data produced to support the argument itself? The third possibility could be that the advocate intentionally breaks a rule of argumentation (such as a logical fallacy)? Is the content, evidential support, or the form of the argument (or any or all of the three) what is unethical?
One of the health issues debated in the Wall Street Journal of June 17 could help to begin a clarification of these questions: the issue was whether or not Americans would be better off eating a mostly organic food diet. The advocate for an organic diet maintains people should avoid exposure to pesticides in food. Chengsheng (Alex) Lu, arguing this position, admits that there is no actual scientific evidence that an organic diet is healthier. But, he argues, “it only makes sense that food free of pesticides and chemicals is safer and better for us than food containing those substances, even at trace levels.” (Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2013, p. B3) Whether or not something “makes sense” is up to the individual. Something may make sense to one person but not another; this argument does not contain any actual evidence or factual support. It relies on the listener/reader to grant what cannot be proven in a scientific fashion. The conclusion, that the pesticides are harmful, then becomes a basis or assumption for trying to prove later contentions in Dr. Lu’s article. In other words, something not proven is taken as proof for other arguments. Although a specialist in argumentation would find this series of interlocking claims weak, it would not seem to be unethical. Why not? Dr. Lu makes several efforts to remind readers of the limitations on his conclusions, admitting that traditional foods are cheaper (usually), more widely available, and not definitely proven more harmful than organic foods. And, it is possible that the assertion about pesticides seemed conclusive to him even though no actual scientific data was introduced in support. An additional consideration is that in a publication such as a newspaper or magazine, or in a brief media spot, there is often not sufficient time or space to develop all the argument and evidence fully.
One lesson from this example is that the person who would be a consumer of public argument should be wary of this kind of reasoning: making an assumption and then using that assumption as evidence for later claims. A second lesson is that ethical advocates make clear to the reader or listener reservations about their arguments and evidence and conflicting evidence on the other side, as does Dr. Lu. In cases in which claims and support are presented as unqualified truths, one should maintain some skepticism toward the arguments.
William W. Neher
Bill Neher is professor emeritus of communication studies at Butler University, where he taught for 42 years. Over those years he has served as Dean of the University College, Director of the Honors Program, Head of the Department of Communication Studies, the Chair of the faculty governance, and most recently as the first Dean (Interim) for the new College of Communication begun in June 2010. He is the author of several books dealing with organizational and professional communication, ethics, and African studies, plus several public speaking and communication text books.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
