Lincoln rejected utilitarian debate in founding the GOP
Have you ever met a moral relativist? What would they believe?
A true moral relativist is someone who believes that the ends justifies the means. Period. There are no moral absolutes that cannot be violated in pursuit of some noble end. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Osama bin Ladin were such people. They believed that some utopia awaited. The Nazis believed that they could end human suffering and perpetuate a genetically perfect Arian race. The Communists believed that they could end economic injustice. The Islamists (as distinct from Muslims) believed that we could have a world Caliphate where virtue and happiness reigned supreme.
Of course, they reasoned, there were just a few people they had to remove first …
Obviously, moral relativism on the biggest scale of all — the belief that a utopian world can be crafted by world conquest and centralized reform — has resulted in the greatest suffering — well over 85,000,000 lives lost to the two socialisms (Nazism and Communism) alone. Islamism — being older — is harder to track.
Unfortunately, utilitarianism and moral relativism are not restricted to such believers in world domination as bin Ladin, Hitler, and Stalin. In spite of the fact that almost all Americans would agree that the actions of such men violated unchanging moral principles under any circumstances, policy debate is often co-opted by utilitarian rhetoric.
For example, if someone advances an argument that is based on principle such as my previous post on the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, it would be (likely inadvertently) utilitarian for someone to clamor for additional studies and experts to confirm my thesis.
In order to refute my argument, a person would instead have to first counteract the principles-based argument I advanced. Such a counter-argument could do one of either two things. It could demonstrate that not only was my principles-based argument wrong but that true principles demand the opposite conclusion — a thorough demolition of my argument. Or it could also prove that the issue was in fact outside the realm of principles altogether and was rather an issue of prudential judgment. If it was a prudential judgement issue, then it would be time to whip out bibliographies on either side as each side needed an evidenced-based argument for prudential judgment.
The default position for argumentation on public policy has to be a series of questions: “Is there a principle that dictates a particular course of action?” If the answer is yes, you must follow the principle. Period. If the answer is no, you must ask: “Which course of action would best get me to the desired results?” A battle over the evidence and data would be then appropriate.
As Americans, we are fortunate that our country was founded on a clear and concise set of principles set out in the Declaration of Independence — the first law and the guiding light of our nation.
When Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln was building an anti-slavery coalition (the Republican Party) that emphasized the basic principle that all men are created equal. He argued that slavery was evil. He argued that the only prudent thing to do with the evil institution was to put it on a gradual path to extinction. Stephen Douglas argued that Lincoln’s lack of prudence would have radical negative consequences and that, although slavery might be evil, it was best for everyone involved (master and slave). Because Douglas was arguing based on practicality and Lincoln based on principle, Lincoln’s argument was superior and was recognized as such by the American people when he became our 16th President.
The best practicality-based pro-slavery argument in the world (Douglas was a renowned debater) is automatically defeated by an unrefuted principles-based argument every time.
Which is why any effective argument will deal with the principles first.