The Futility of Pragmatic Arguments
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
The following is an edited correspondence. One loyal reader sends me an article in which he tries to provide a biblical perspective on drug use. My response focuses on the futility of pragmatic arguments.
Mr. Cheung,
In the attachment you will find the completed essay on drug use. I have added some new information. It is complete except for the final editing.
I think it is a good essay. It is written in what I have dubbed the "Vincent Cheung style." What I mean by this is that you have a deadly logic in your books. It has rubbed off on this young man.
In my reply, I refer to something said by John Frame in one of his articles. The quotation in question reads as follows:
Legalizing drugs is, in my mind, a live option. The "war on drugs" doesn’t seem to have been successful, and it is unlikely to succeed in the near future. Legalization would lower the cost of drugs and therefore the crime rate. I’m inclined toward a position that would legalize drugs for adults but provide harsh penalties for those who sell to children. This parallels the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. I'm inclined to think that adults should have to take responsibility for their own choices in this area.
Here is my reply:
About your essay on drugs, I haven’t had time to read it as carefully as I would like to, but I wanted to get back to you about it quickly.
I think that it is fine. I have not read the quote from John Frame before, and was surprised that he used such a poor pragmatic argument. By now I shouldn’t be surprised by bad arguments, but sometimes they are so obviously bad that I still am, especially when they are asserted by people who are supposed to know better. Perhaps I should lower my expectation even more.
Now, we could agree that the "war on drugs" doesn't work, but pragmatic arguments are weak because there are often ways to make something work that doesn’t work — it’s just that people won’t make it work.
For example, consider the policy of punishment with the war on drugs — I suspect that if we make even minimum drug use a capital crime punishable by immediate shooting on the spot regardless of age, then the war on drugs would indeed "work" better. Better yet, if it is the policy that the government would kill the drug user, all his friends, and all his relatives immediately, I am pretty sure that there would be fewer drug users.
Of course I am not suggesting that this should be the policy, but I am saying that if people argue against something for pragmatic reasons, then I can often make a suggestion that turns the conclusion around.
Another example is the death penalty. People against the death penalty often say that it is no good because it does not deter. Ignoring for now the fact that punishment should not be only for the purpose of deterrence, we must ask why capital punishment does not deter. Maybe it is because after we catch and even convict the criminals, we feed them, make them comfortable, let them repeatedly appeal for 10 years, give them all kinds of rights and privileges, and then after all that kill them with a painless injection.
I am pretty sure that capital punishment would work to deter if we kill all convicted criminals within six months with the most painful and gruesome punishment imaginable — and do it on public television.
Again, I am not suggesting that this ought to be the policy, but only that the pragmatic argument is no good, because if the argument is that it doesn't work, then all I have to do is to suggest something that would make it work. And when you base an argument on whether something works, the opponent can often just give a counter-example.
Besides this, of course, there are many other problems with pragmatic arguments. For example, it identifies the good or the "ought" with the practical. Also, it assumes that the end by which the means are judged is indeed the end that ought to be desired.
Good essay. Keep writing.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
John Murray, Principles of Conduct