“It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: “Marriage.” You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.” ~Liz Feldman

I shall endeavor to write this article without making it sound too much like a formal philosophy essay. This means I may not give as much support or background for the claims I will set forth. My goal is to make this article easy to read and understand, and even though those reading it may not necessarily agree with my arguments, I hope it at least serves to spark a further interest in philosophy and/or some key LGBTQ issues- particularly the issue of same-sex marriage. 

WIth that being said, let’s start with the basics. There are a variety of modes of reasoning that we, as human beings, use to think, rationalize, and form judgements on and about a variety of different issues. When it comes to practical reasoning, that is, reasoning about how we should act, one of the most widespread and accepted modes of reasoning is called “apodictic reasoning”. Apodictic reasoning, although originally a term in Aristotelian logic, has its origins in the thought of early modern philosophers, such as Descartes and Locke, whose views were more or less a response to the scientific revolution. Without going into too much detail, apodictic reasoning essentially follows the following format: you start with an incontestable claim/axiom as your starting point, make inferences from that starting point, and insofar as those inferences follow logically, whatever conclusions that are drawn from them will be incontestable as well. For example, if I start with the claim that all mammals are animals (starting point), infer that cats are mammals (inference), then the incontestable conclusion that would follow would be that all cats are animals. It’s fairly simple.

Noting that the persuasive force behind this apodictic mode of reasoning relies on the incontestable starting point/claim, we can see that this mode of reasoning works perfectly for many, if not all, scientific arguments, which are based on observation of the external world. Since we, as humans, all perceive the external world in a similar way, we can usually agree on these scientific claims concerning the nature of the external world, which, since they are indeed scientific, necessarily rely on observation. But what about claims that do not, and cannot, rely on observations of the external world, such as claims about morality, i.e. principles that we should rely on to guide our behaviour/actions? Usually these claims are much more controversial, and thus do not have as much persuasive force when the apodictic mode of reasoning is used to draw conclusions from them. For example, if I state that killing is wrong (starting point), and infer that eating meat requires one to kill an animal (whether or not they were the one that killed it) (inference), then eating meat is also wrong (conclusion). Here, the starting point is not incontestable- many may not agree that killing is wrong. Some may say that killing those who deserve it is right, some may say that only killing humans is wrong (exempting animals), and some may even be fine with the whole notion of killing.

This possibility of variance in opinion here fuels moral skepticism, which is an attitude that claims we can’t get at or agree on principles of morality due to the wide variety of beliefs that people have. This indeed seems true when considered in the context of apodictic reasoning, which itself relies on incontestable beliefs as its starting point. Thus, many philosophers have proposed that we use alternative modes of reasoning to think about morality. But the problem is that those who have not studied philosophy tend to rely on apodictic reasoning for most of their arguments, including arguments about science and morality. This is why it is always controversial to claim that something- be it an action, a policy, or a belief- is right or wrong, for as long as we rely on apodictic reasoning, it is going to difficult to find any common ground for which to base a sound argument on.

Of course, my response would be to suggest that people take philosophy so that they can learn about different modes of reasoning/logic or about different ways of grounding moral claims, but it is a fact that not everyone will do so. This is why reason  sometimes seems powerless in the face of moral disagreement, and that even if we use it correctly in our arguments, there will always be some people who are going to remain unconvinced by our claims. This is true for the claim that same-sex marriage should be legal, and even that it is NOT morally wrong/bad. This claim rests on the foundational belief in the equality of civil rights. However, we note that this claim in itself is not 100% accurate, as the complete equality of civil rights would cause some fairly significant problem and impose heavy burdens on society, such as making allowances for hate speech under freedom of expression. Therefore, we find ourselves more inclined to believe in the equality of civil rights subject to reasonable constraints. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself recognizes this claim under Section 1: ”The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. This is what gives us the authority to condemn things like hate speech since even though it may be a civil right, it causes obvious harm to those whom it is directed toward as it is an expression of an intense emotion that does nothing except to vilify or detest people.

By adding this clause of reasonable constraints, the persuasive force behind the arguments based on this claim are somewhat undermined if we are to think in terms of strict apodictic reasoning. If we take a belief in equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints as our foundational claim, there are going to be many objections and debate as to what constitutes a reasonable constraint in that case, which means that are starting point is, in essence, not incontestable. Therefore, arguments that rest on that claim are going to fuel much debate and controversy. Of course, we can still do our best to reason with and persuade people that certain things are right or wrong on the basis of this claim, or else we could never come to any sort of agreement in law or in simple conversations/arguments with others. Certainly, it is my view that, insofar as what qualifies as a reasonable constraint is constituted by the fact that something causes direct harm or imposes undue hardship on any member of a given society, same-sex marriage does not cause any such harm and nor does it impose any such hardship. Therefore, it should be granted and legalized not only in Canada (which it thankfully has), but also in all other countries whose constitutional beliefs rest upon this claim that equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints (which thus includes the USA). Of course, this will seem (hopefully) obvious to many people reading this- my point in writing this article is just to point out why skepticism about the issue of same-sex marriage (and other constitutional, legal, and moral claims) exists and why it is more common than skepticism about scientific knowledge.

So the next time you get into an argument with somebody over same-sex marriage and it looks like the argument has indeed come to a standstill, one possible solution to that problem would be to suggest that your opponent take a philosophy class in logic or ethics, for as long as they base their argument in the common mode of apodictic reasoning, it is going to be quite difficult to persuade them to change their opinion… or perhaps that’s just my biased opinion as a philosophy major

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 2:38 PM and is filed under Support Network. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.