Essay:Rationality as an Ethos Argument

There is nothing quite as frustrating as listening to Ben Shapiro and other conservative talking heads cite "facts and logic" as a method of supporting their arguments and positions. I will refrain from insults, but the claim that "facts and logic" form the core of the arguments put forward by the conservative mouthpieces of PragerU and its ilk is laughable at best. If you have even a baseline understanding of rhetoric, you will know that logic is simply a way of structuring beliefs to articulate and support various conclusions. Logic doesn't refer to the content of an argument, nor does it determine if the argument is "right" or "wrong". It simply describes whether an argument is constructed in a way that is efficient in communicating how its own presuppositions lead to a particular conclusion.

Here's an example:

THEREFORE
 * My cat has fur
 * Every cat I've ever met has had fur
 * Every cat has fur

Now, here's the important part: This example is logically sound. The evidence is presented, and we can see how it leads to the argument's conclusion. However, it should be apparent that this argument is incorrect. It is formulated based on a limited data set, and can be easily debunked simply by producing a hairless cat. The biggest takeaway is that logic is not a sign of a good argument, it is simply the sign of a well structured argument.

Logic is an incredibly useful tool. When you try to build arguments without understanding their structure, you can get completely lost in the muddled mess of the point you're trying to articulate. For example, often people who haven't learned much about rhetoric will simply throw all of their ideas into a pile and expect others to pick through it and try to come to a conclusion; then, when that conclusion doesn't match up with what that person thought they were articulating, they lash out because they feel they've been misrepresented and misinterpreted. The conclusion that you draw from this scrap heap of loosely connected arguments may even be entirely accurate to what a person believes internally, but it might not match up with what they want to believe about how they view the world. As another example, some leftists will become incredibly uncomfortable and defensive when you point out that they have internalized racist beliefs, because acknowledging those beliefs means acknowledging that they too carry prejudices that they believe are wrong and immoral.

Structuring your arguments using a kind of logic (different logical structures benefit different arguments) gives you the confidence to say: Here's what I mean and here's how I'm supporting it. In this case, when your argument gets misinterpreted you can point out where the misunderstanding is happening and form a coherent rebuttal, rather than simply flailing around and reaching for whichever fallacy or thought terminating cliche will end the conversation most quickly.

By the way, I am not saying these things to disparage those who don't understand rhetoric. It's a subjective nightmare to not be armed with this knowledge, because you feel the constant pressure to be certain about your beliefs, yet you have no means by which to explore and structure them. When you don't understand logic, and more important rhetoric as a whole, your agency in interpreting new arguments and ideas is gravely restrained. In the worst of cases, it makes you susceptible to coercion and indoctrination towards hate and violent action.

So what does this have to do with Ben Shapiro and other similar conservative "intellectuals"?

To answer that question, we need to tackle the bigger question of what rhetoric actually is. Essentially, rhetoric is the art of convincing someone of something. It's a word that's thrown around a lot by people who don't know what it actually means, and as a result the water can be a bit muddy and needs some filtration. For now I would ask that you simply view rhetoric as a tool; it can be used for good, it can be used for evil, but it has no inherent morality until it is wielded to achieve a particular end.

Rhetoric can be split into three main categories:


 * Logos- We've already talked about this one. Logos is the Greek root word from which we get logic, and it describes the structure of an argument.
 * Ethos- An argument which essentially seeks to build the speaker's credibility. At their very core, ethos arguments essentially say "You should listen to me because I possess this characteristic or background." These arguments are frequently viewed with skepticism, often for good reason, but people make them all the time without even realizing it. For example, the entirety of a job interview is a kind of long, drawn out ethos argument that you're making to the person who might hire you.
 * Pathos- An argument from emotion. Many people (especially conservative speakers) view this as an inherent reason to dismiss an argument, but this is rather short sighted and inherently hypocritical. The majority of humans are emotional creatures, and our feelings drive us to a desire to change the world. Arguments without at least a little bit of emotion often lack punch, and can seem theoretical and distant from the real world. It's worth noting that pathos is a bit like salt in cooking: Using it well brings out the other flavors in a dish and improves the overall taste, but if you go overboard the salt becomes the only thing you taste and can cover up all the work you've done to develop other interesting flavors.

Here's where we bring it home. These citations of "facts and logic" are not, as you might think, logos arguments. Rather, they function as ethos arguments to hype up the intellectual street cred of conservative speakers. Despite what he says, logic isn't really a strong suit of Ben Shapiro's style of argument; his arguments are coherent and based on a logic that's understandable, if poorly informed. Instead, what he wants you to do is conflate the logical soundness and coherence of what he's saying with his correctness. Never mind the fact that plenty of leftists also construct logical, coherent arguments, often in response to Ben; they're wrong because they don't respect how logical his arguments are.

This whole line of reasoning is similar to another idea that conservatives love to appeal to: Common sense. Common sense is an excellent concept to appeal to because it is not a definite, determined set of beliefs, but rather a loose collection of perceptions about the world. Again, it doesn't matter that many common sense beliefs are flat out wrong. As an example, it could be considered to be common sense to believe that the Earth is flat, because it happens to look flat when you're standing on it. Another example: A common sense understanding of gravity would be that it pulls things "down", despite the fact that in reality there is no universal "down" and gravity simply pulls objects with mass toward other objects with mass. Common sense is a shorthand that is sometimes a useful way of understanding the world and how to act within it, but exclusively organizing your entire worldview around it will prevent you from gaining a deeper understanding of what's going on.

Ultimately, this type of intellectual sleight of hand is harmful, because it serves to obfuscate the actual meaning behind a person's argument and protect them from criticism. Even worse, it prevents people from seeing the benefits of rationality, logic, and an analytical approach to understanding the world by creating an association between these ideas and being a self-righteous hypocrite. Of course, this is in many ways beneficial to people in power because citizens who aren't capable of robust analysis are much easier to manipulate and ultimately control than those who are.

I will admit that I found this wiki for the first time today, and that my initial thought was "uh oh". Again, many people hype up their rationality as a kind of ethos argument and then present ideas that are not well supported, full of holes and fallacies, and generally antagonistic to real discussion of ideas. I was happy to discover that this was not the case here, as far as I could tell; I understand that this is a crowdsourced platform and that there will inherently be some bad ideas as a result, but the fact that the wiki seems to effectively pursue its goal of rationality is really a sign of optimism and hope.

Remember that it's easy to get frustrated by this deceitful appropriation of rationality, but ultimately the work of slowly chipping away at these perceptions and expanding people's perspective is the antidote to this insidious brand of pseudointellectual posturing.