You’ve caught someone trying to steal first base: Now what?
You have identified the feeling that the other person is making unwarranted assumptions, and held up one finger to indicate “Hold on a minute.” In short, you suspect a BZL 1. How do you identify the assumption you disagree with? There are a couple steps you can take to get the argument back on track.
1. Restate the argument. “So, if I understand you, you are saying that . . .” If nothing else, this does two important things. First, it assures that you really understand the argument that is being made, and are not arguing some point that is not really in dispute. (See BZL 5). Second, restating the argument can help you put your hesitation into words.
2. Try to determine the principle that the argument rests on. You can suggest what you think it is — “You seem to be saying that any taking of human life is murder” — or simply ask what the underlying principle is.
3. Try to turn the argument into a syllogism. A syllogism is the gold standard for a logical argument. To use Plato’s famous example: “1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” This syllogism has one major premise (statement of a general principle) — “All men are mortal.” It also has one minor premise, (statement of particular fact) — “Socrates is a man.” If the major premise and the minor premise are both true, the conclusion — “Socrates is mortal” — is undeniable.
To give another example, the abortion is murder argument recast as a syllogism looks like: “1. All taking of human life is murder. 2. Abortion is the taking of a human life. 3. Therefore, abortion is murder.”
To take another current example that illustrates that there can be more than three steps in the argument: “1. The United States has the right to invade any country that poses a clear and present danger to our security. 2. Any hostile country that possesses weapons of mass destruction poses a clear and present danger to US security. 3. Iraq is hostile to the US. 4. Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. 5. The US has the right to invade Iraq.” This argument has two major premises (1 and 2) and two minor premises (3 and 4).
Once the underlying assumptions are clear, there are further steps.
4. Point out any assumptions that you don’t think are justified. See if the person sticks by the argument in its full, and clearer, form.
5. If they persist in the unwarranted assumption, the problem is probably with the major premise. If so, offer a counter-example. “You say that all taking of human life is murder. But what about killing during war, or in self-defense, or the death penalty?”
Of course, the other person can reply: “Abortion isn’t war, or self-defense, or the death penalty.” This is true, but the original premise — all taking of human life is murder — has been disproven.
The question now becomes: “Is abortion the kind of taking of human life that counts as murder?” The argument may continue, but it will be a better argument.
Or the argument can shift to a more productive arena. Rather than arguing about whether abortion is murder, you can discuss in a less loaded way whether it is wrong, and under what circumstances, if any, it should be allowed.
It may be difficult to drag the other person into a real discussion. The point of using BZL 1 is often to avoid a discussion by jumping to the desired conclusion. But try anyway.
6. Another approach, once the underlying structure of the argument is laid bare is to use rhetorical jujitsu. Don’t disagree with the person, or challenge them. Just take the argument to its logical conclusion. “So, if we have a right to invade any hostile country that possesses weapons of mass destruction, do you think we should invade North Korea? And since North Korea clearly had nuclear weapons and was more openly hostile, why not invade it first? And, if North Korea, why not Iran? And Pakistan? And Venezuela?”
If you run into someone who actually believes that we should invade all of those countries — and anyone else who hates us for our freedom — my advice is to back away slowly, remembering to smile constantly until you are well away from them.
There is another benefit to identifying a BZL 1. Once the underlying assumption is uncovered, it can be checked against the other BZLs. And we might well ask whether the statement that “abortion is murder” isn’t a form of BZL 2 – name calling.
