A number of years ago, a contentious, brilliant philosopher, political theorist and ex-Marxist wrote down the following rules for democratic discourse:
- Nothing and no one is immune from criticism.
- Everyone involved in a controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself of the available facts.
- Criticism should be directed first to policies and against persons only when they are responsible for policies and against their motives or purposes only when there is some independent evidence of their character.
- Because certain words are legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.
- Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
- Do not treat an opponent of a policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy or an enemy of the country or a concealed enemy of democracy.
- Since a good cause may be defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another’s position present positive evidence for your own.
- Do not hesitate to admit lack of knowledge or suspend judgment if evidence is not decisive either way.
- Only in pure logic and mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is strictly impossible. . . The question is always one of the balances of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities.
- The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion.
These 10 ground rules for discussion first appeared in “The Ethics of Controversy,” in the New Leader on February 1, 1954. It’s reprinted in an excellent book, Sidney Hook on Pragmatism, Democracy and Freedom: The Essential Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002), edited by Robert Talilsse and Robert Tempio.
Wouldn’t adherence to these rules transform political debate and “scorched earth” polemics, as well as ignorant, abrasive and uncivil talk shows? Maybe we should circulate a nationwide petition!
Oh, by the way, Hook’s rules on political discourse also fit into a nifty theory and justification of democracy as a way of life. Check out The Essential Essays for more. Go to an academic library if you desire to read one of his 20-plus books. You might be surprised by some of his political positions, but you will not be disappointed. Finally, despite rumors to the contrary, Sidney Hook never became a neo-conservative. He remained a loyal, but idiosyncratic American liberal (or social democrat).