The things we hear others say can be a source of amusement if only we know how to properly examine them. So many of the arguments in our daily lives are based literally on semantics, and we are all usually so busy trying to convince ourselves that our opinions are right that we do not stop to analyze just what it is exactly we are arguing about. Often it is not so much that the other party's thinking is logically flawed, as that we are arguing about quite different things.
Take for example the American tax code. It is not uncommon to find, especially in articles targeted at a middle class audience, a headline screaming "Republicans cut taxes to favor the rich," or "Study shows worrying rise in inequality, due to unfair Reagan tax structure." It need not be said that most of the people who write such articles, as well as those for whom they right, take themselves very seriously indeed, and need one say that their opponents feel just as strongly about the matter? But what exactly are the two camps arguing about?
A critical examination of the arguments shows that at the root of most such disagreements on the tax code lie two inconsistent definitions of what it means for a tax system to be "fair." One party defines a fair tax system as one in which there are no extremities of wealth and poverty, one man's excess income helping to offset another's deficit; the other party defines a "fair" system as one where those who earn a living are allowed to keep a commensurate sure of their earnings.
In such a scheme of things, who is right? I at least cannot claim that there is some absolute law out in the natural world that will help me decide. In the end, the side one chooses to support will depend largely on circumstance -- it is largely an ad-hoc decision, based on one's prejudices and past experiences.
It is at this juncture that partisans of both sides will feel the need to be critical -- no one wants to be told that his beliefs are less than immutable truth. Yet if my critics can find the patience, perhaps it would be worthwhile to examine the issue further.
Why do we all believe what we do? Why do we believe in ideals such as the rights of man, decency, morality and so forth? And why do we take the particular slants on these ideals that we all do? It rarely occurs to the strident believer in any system, political or religious, that he might have held quite different views, and with equal fervor, but for circumstance. A person born into an Islamic society will believe just as strongly in the Koran as an American born into an evangelical community might his Bible. The son of a shipping magnate or a British Lord will see greater fairness in taxation than a slum dweller or a schoolteacher will. Why then do we all assume that we have privileged access to the True Way?
It pays now to look at another issue much on the minds of the squabbling classes, namely Affirmative Action. Some call it racism, others redress for past injustices and a safeguard against ongoing bigotry. Those who see it as racism claim that in a truly colorblind society, there will be no actions by the government that favor some racial groups over others.
Implicit in this argument is the assumption that current society is more or less colorblind, an assumption which no reasonable sociological study will bear out. People make judgments based on race all the time, from whom they will hire to whom they will allow their children to date. It is thus not obvious that the government acts not to tip the scales towards but away from equality. There is also the problem of answering how it is "fair" that, say, a student with the money to go to prep school and take the Kaplan course should be in competition with another living in a drug-war zone.
On the other side of the aisle one finds the assumption that it is somehow the government's duty to equalize outcomes, and that a situation cannot be "fair" if all racial groups are not represented in proportion to their share of the general population. Why this is so is not logically obvious. Even taking the constitution as a sacred document, it need not follow that all groups must succeed equally in all arenas, and even that assumes complete homogeneity in the objectives and interests of every group.
Taking all the above into account, it seems reasonable that there is no truly logical way to settle the Affirmative Action, or taxation debates. I for one suspect that, in any case, most people will decide not after a logical examination of the issues, but based on which position suits their own private objectives and desires. Such criteria have logical merit of a sort -- certainly Machievelli would have approved.
