An argument in favor of arguing

So often it seems that matters of religion and politics spark arguments (that's why these subjects tend to be banned at family gatherings large and small). But what, if anything, is wrong if arguing? At its root, argument is simply speech, and speech is not inherently evil. Certainly the Bible, the Word of God, which is Jesus, is not evil, and just as certainly, it is speech. So like most things of this world, the morality or immorality, or amorality of speech, and therefore of argument, is defined by the nature in which we use it.

In general, the morality of an act depends upon the outcome of three tests. The act itself, the circumstances surrounding the act, and the motive of the actor. We've shown that argument is not inherently evil, since it is essentially speech. Thus argument does not fail the first test.

We cannot make any general statements about the second test, the circumstances of an argument. The mindset of the arguers and the topic of the argument constitute the circumstances of the argument. Certainly these circumstances can make an argument immoral. An argument between Stalin and Mao about the best techniques for running a death camp could certainly be considered immoral based on its circumstances. However circumstances don't make all arguments immoral.

So we're left with the motive of the actor. Why do one or both parties start and continue the argument? In my case, I most often find myself arguing to win. I may be more clever than my opponent, or more knowledgeable about the subject, or I may have truth on my side. In any case, I am arguing to win, as if there is some cosmic scoreboard keeping track of the argument's progress.

For most of my life, this is how I've viewed argument. However I recently listened to one of Peter Kreeft's lectures, entitled Pro-Life Philosophy, and my view drastically changed. Near the beginning of the lecture Kreeft explains that arguing is not about winning, but rather about knowing. The purpose of an argument should not be to win, but rather to test knowledge. Like a science experiment, which tests a proposed hypothesis, an argument is an intellectual experiment which tests a theory. So the motive of the actor, in this case the arguer, can make an argument immoral. If the goal of the arguer is to win, then an argument is really no longer an argument, but a war of some sort (albeit a cold war, hopefully). Thus the principles of just war theory should be applied to determine whether or not an argument is moral.

For a person who enjoys argumentation and usually argues with the intent of winning, this can be a startling revelation. Yet Kreeft's argument about arguing makes sense. A victory in an argument (if such a quantity can be measured) usually accomplishes little more than ego inflation.

However even arguing to win can have some benefit. Throughout college, I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate. A highly structured argument, the focus of LD debate is victory. Yet in the proper context, we can use this type of arguing to win to train our minds and prepare them for the more important arguments, those which seek knowledge and truth, not victory.

So argumentation is not necessarily wrong, but it must be approached with the proper motives in order to be right.