There is a strand of argumentation that I have been seeing very frequently of late, and it is one of which I have become increasingly weary, and would love nothing more than if the entire world just agreed to drop the whole thing for the good of mankind. Rightly speaking, it isn't really even an argument, but rather a non-argument. It is an attempt to do away with argument, stop it cold in its tracks, so that the conversation can't continue.
This non-argument is seen in many different conversations and is stated in many different ways. It comes up in conversations about law, about justice, and about public morality. Its specifics vary from time to time, but it almost always starts with the following statement: "that may be your personal opinion, but...."
In effect this non-argument does not insist that the opposing view is wrong, but rather that the opposing view is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how reasonable, how rational, or how true the opposing view is. All that matters is that the opposing view has no place interfering with the outside world. It is not an attempt to refute the view, or show where the one proposing it has erred. It is a trump card, designed not to engage in debate, but rather to avoid debate altogether. Playing this trump card is simply an attempt to prevent the logic and reason of others from having influence on one's own thought.
And I can easily see why one might be tempted to make this non-argument. As we have seen from the
ladder of inference, the premises we take to a conversation—true or false—are personal and based on our experiences. Another person, with another set of experiences, may approach the conversation with a different premise. Since no amount of rational argument or reasonable deduction will convince another person that his experiences did not happen, it is in most cases impossible to change the opinion of the other person. And since the premises—and experiences upon which they are based—are not only
not the topic of the conversation, but most frequently are not even brought up, we most often don't even know
why we disagree on the topic. The rude person assumes the other person has a defective brain, and calls him stupid or his views irrational. The charitable person, trying to understand how a seemingly intelligent and reasonable person may have arrived at such an unintelligent and unreasonable conclusion, may be tempted to simply invoke the non-argument. That is, "well, the person may have reasons for his belief, but since they are not my reasons, they don't affect me." Hence, the "that may be your personal belief...."
What irks me most about the non-argument, is that, in its attempt to defuse the disagreement charitably, it doesn't seem to have thought itself through very well. For, truly, aren't
all our beliefs personal? If one person's argument is not admissible because it's his personal belief, why not any other's? Shouldn't we adopt the post permissible moral code possible? "Well, yes," reply the non-arguers. "To each his own." But then, does that not allow for all sorts of atrocities, from murder, rape, and torture to shoplifting, petty theft and everything in between? "No of course not! You mustn't harm another person!" But... isn't this your personal belief? And since the definition of "person" is one of the very things the non-argument is often used to obfuscate, why should we use your personal definition of personhood over any other? Taking it further, isn't it only your personal belief that personal beliefs should not be forced on others? In its attempt to marginalize the other person's argument, the non-argument marginalizes itself.
The non-argument attempts to reduce law, justice, and morality to the realm of the subjective, such that preference for one morality over another is simply like a preference for chocolate over vanilla. The problem is, I've never met someone who actually treats morality as if its not objective. Those who make the assertion that morality is always a private matter are the ones who are most indignant and most self-righteous at perceived injustices against themselves or others. If all morality is a private matter, subject to personal opinion, then there can be nothing inherently immoral about injustice. On what ground do you protest someone who commits an injustice against another? It may be your personal opinion that his actions are immoral, but who are you to enforce your personal opinions on others?
Of course, I'm being a little unfair here by grouping everyone who makes the non-argument into a group with those who deny objective morality. Many who non-argue are not opposed to the concept of a universal moral law, but rather, simply misunderstand the opposing view. The non-arguer may not understand the reasons behind his opponent's views, and just simply infer that it's for some mysterious unknowable reason. "You only say that because you think the Bible tells you to." But this, again, is a non-argument, because it doesn't address the actual reasons behind the view, just the inferred reasons. It ignores the appeals to natural law and objective truth, and instead simply attacks a strawman.
Despite these obvious (to me) problems with the non-argument, I continue to see it used whenever someone doesn't want to admit a view contrary to their own into the debate. Whenever someone takes a stand for traditional marriage, the non-argument will be made "that's just your personal opinion about marriage! You can't force that on others!" Whenever someone says that it is an injustice to deny the unborn their rights, someone else will non-argue "but that's merely your opinion on personhood! You can't deny a woman her right to choose!" Whenever someone explains the moral difficulties of euthanasia, the non-argument appears, "keep your morality off my body!" In none of the cases is the non-arguer actually making a case about the nature of marriage, the rights of the human person, or the dignity of human life. All he is saying is that all such arguments are irrelevant.
