'the exercise of independent practical reasoning is one essential constituent to full human flourishing. It is not... that one cannot flourish at all, if unable to reason. Nonetheless not to be able to reason soundly at the level of practice is a grave disability' (1999, p.105).Independence in reasoning for MacIntyre entails being willing and able to evaluate reasons for action put forward by others and to defend one's own approbation of the practical conclusions of others as well as one's own conclusions. As such, I need to be able to give an intelligible account of my reasoning to those who call me to account; however, this account does not need to be theoretical or abstract. Rather I would appeal to the norms or standards of excellence of sound reasoning in my society. The loss of this ability to reason both for ourselves and with others is lamented by MacIntyre in his earlier work After Virtue well-known for it's attack on Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment forms of reason. Practical reasoning, as I understand it, is simply intelligible reason-giving. Yet according to MacIntyre, intelligibility and commensurability have largely been lost in both modern moral philosophy and in everyday human interactions. What has replaced it is assertions and counter-assertions based on feelings, leading to interminable debate between different incommensurable standpoints. The result is 'the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate' (1985, p. 8).
Indeed this shrill tone is everywhere evident, in particular below the line in the comments section of most websites where an opinion is voiced - from scholarly articles to news sites to blog posts. Even on social networks like twitter and facebook. One obvious phenomenon of the shrill internet debate is the 'internet troll' who states an opinion in order to be controversial or get a reaction from his fellow commentors. However, the charge of trolling is often ascribed to those whom one simply holds fundamentally opposite views to. Take for instance the controversial topic of abortion. If someone from a right leaning perspective joins a pro-choice discussion, which is perfectly commonplace online, stating that abortion is murder and the fetus has a right to life, usually there is little anyone can say to make their reasoning intelligible to the new interlocutor. Usually with such sensitive issues, the debate becomes one of heated argument causing upset and offense. Someone from outside the community of pro-choicers appears to have invaded their space and inflicted his or her hateful views on the group and, as such, is branded a troll. The outsider may be able to give intelligible reasons to other pro-lifers but his or her views are incommensurable with the pro-choice community. He or she is unable to defend his conclusions and give an account which is intelligible to those of the opposing standpoint. Comments threads and social networking sites, while occasionally fostering healthy debate, usually bring together incommensurable standpoints. As for those who are simply trying to get a reaction out of those they disagree with, they are failing in terms of practical reasoning because they are unwilling to give intelligible reasons for their views and actions.
Another example of the failure of practical reasoning is the abusive letter, email or tweet. While some people are simply hateful or vindictive, many of these abusive messages are expressions of frustration. Perhaps this frustration is a result of being unable to reason soundly at the level of practice. Today, it has been reported, a man was fined for sending an abusive email to a Tory MP, Stuart Andrew, who was the victim of a drunken attack by the former Labour MP Eric Joyce. The abusive email called Andrew a "queer mammy's boy" and said that "the sooner the IRA restarts and bombs your conference again the better" among other things (see the full report from the Independent here). The interesting thing about this case is that the defendant, Nicholas Scales, had no intention of carrying out the threats and claimed that it boiled down to his political views. Outside of court he admitted that he expressed himself badly and could have put forward his views in a more positive and constructive manner. Similar, though less political, is the case of the twitter 'troll' who sent an abusive tweet to Olympic diver Tom Daley but later claimed he meant no harm and was simply "annoyed we didn't win" (The Telegraph).
It is not just common courtesy which is lacking in these messages, it is a break down in independent practical reasoning. In the internet age, practically anyone can voice an opinion or say whatever they like to whomever they like. Furthermore, I could write something in the spur of the moment without thought or hesitation and that thoughtless comment can be retweeted or reblogged a thousand times before I can take it back, delete it or apologise. Sometimes this can be a good thing because I will be shamed by a thousand for my rudeness or ignorance. However, it often leads to more anger and hatred, even punishments which are way out of proportion, and very little forgiveness. Of course, there are moderators on message boards which filter out most of the abusive messages but this does not filter out the anger, frustration and resentment of people who fundamentally disagree. Outside of internet land, many of these people would not even encounter each other let alone enter into a full blown moral debate. And when they do, the social norms and niceties which govern face-to-face interactions moderate the majority of us or we risk making a scene. Not so on the internet message board where one can happily hide behind anonymity and wind people up from morning until night.
No comments:
Post a Comment