Latin terms name the two
basic choices we have when discussing, debating, or arguing with someone.
We can use ad hominem
arguments. Ad hominem literally means “to the man” (we would say “to the
person”). Someone using an ad hominem argument attacks the other person rather
than discuss the issue.
Our other option is to
use ad rem arguments. Ad rem literally means “to the point.” Someone using an
ad rem argument focuses on discussing the issue at hand rather than on
attacking the other person.
It seems to me that
people too often use ad hominem arguments rather than ad rem ones. We are quick
to attack each other rather than talk about the issues. We see this tendency especially
when people discuss political, social, or religious issues.
I suspect it’s always
been that way, but social media seems to bring this tendency out in extreme
ways. I’ve seen many of my Facebook friends and fellow tweeters use derogatory
terms to attack those with whom they disagree. They sometimes direct their
insults at individuals, but they usually target groups, particularly in generalized,
stereotyped, or caricatured forms.
Such attacks aren’t
helpful for many reasons, but I’ll name just two. First, they reflect false and
careless thinking. All Democrats are not the same in their attitudes,
perspectives, and positions. Neither are all Republicans, conservatives, or
liberals. Every group has its subgroups, and every group is made up of
individuals.
A second reason that
attacking people rather than addressing issues is unhelpful is that it makes it
very difficult to come together to solve problems.
Some of us like to engage
in a form of ad hominem argumentation that I’ll call “name and blame.”
Political leaders often use this approach. They’ll say something like, “It
started under the last administration” or “It’s the other party’s fault.”
Normal people say the same kinds of things: “Why didn’t you complain about this
when your party was in control?” “Well, after all, Warren G. Harding did it
first.”
Such statements aren’t
helpful even when they’re true. Rehashing who did what way back when doesn’t
get us anywhere here and now, and here is where we are and now is when we are.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t
look back at all. We should, because understanding how we got here can help us
figure out what we need to do now that we’ve arrived. For example, we can’t
arrive at valid solutions to our immigration situation if we don’t recall how
countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras got into the state they’re
in, come to grips with the role we played in it, and make a strong commitment
to work with them to help them become places where their citizens can be safe
and secure.
But it does no good to
blame those who came before. And it certainly does no good to blame those who
voted for and supported those who came before.
We will be much better
off if we’ll stick to ad rem arguments. We need to deal with the issues at hand
in positive and constructive ways. This is difficult because different people
have such different starting points. As for me, I make no apology for wanting
always to begin with love, grace, compassion, and mercy. I realize this will
never be a perfect world and we who live in it will always have mixed motives
and limited perspectives.
But we need to come
together to work on identifying the root causes of our problems, developing
real solutions, and working to make things better.
I cling to the hope that
we will.
No comments:
Post a Comment