Introduction
The first and principal rule in dialogue is to maintain a certain degree of objectivity which, of course, precludes an unsubstantiated bias or prejudice towards a particular position. Without such an elementary rule, society would collapse into anarchy. Everyone would be concerned with what each believed or wanted to be the truth without a sober reflection on the facts of the matter at hand. While it is an easy fallacy to detect, it is not as easy to correct in today’s self-absorbed society. In Christianity, the Protestant revolution is a perfect example of the facile acceptance of such a method of resolving disputes. Indeed, the auto-demolition of Protestant Christianity continues, unfettered, year after year over this exact fallacy.
Definition
The fallacy that purports to argue a proposition only on the basis of one’s own personal belief in that proposition.
Illustrations
1)
Objective Argument: The current canon of the bible is inspired because God commissioned the Catholic Church to decide such questions. Why do you believe in the book of Mormon?
Subjective Counter-Argument: Because I feel a ‘burning in my bosom’.
2)
Objective Argument: "Sex outside marriage is harmful and therefore wrong because, statistically speaking, people who engage in it are more likely to divorce when they to get married."
Subjective Counter-Argument: "Well, sex may be wrong for you, but it’s not for me."
Diagnosis
Most people engaged in dialogue do not make this kind of mistake because it is so obviously fallacious. However, because of our increasingly secularized and selfish society - especially in western liberal democracies, this simple fallacy has become thinly veiled under the error of religious pluralism where each religion is viewed as equal. Moreover, this prognosis is more than apparent when discussing moral issues with non-Catholics, for instance. Issues like abortion and homosexuality often engender arguments like ‘don’t force your morality or religion on me’ and ‘if you believe abortion is wrong, then don’t engage in it, but don’t tell me what to do’. Concealed in such a fashion, proponents of these dimwitted arguments do not recognize the underlying subjectivist absurdity of their propositions.
Antidote
The best plan of attack against the subjectivist mindset is to challenge the proponent to take his argument to a universal plane. Explain to him that in order to advance a proposition that is binding or not binding, as the case may be, he must make it a universal maxim. Murder is not right for some while it is right for others. Nor is stealing. Nor is adultery. Either something is moral or binding for everyone or it is not. One cannot exempt oneself from a universal maxim simply because one wishes to. Once you point out a few simple examples of the futility of this argument, and if you are fortunate to get some concession there, it is time to address the particular issue in question. Once you have accomplished this, the real debate can start. Sometimes, however, the real debate *is* over subjectivism, and therefore it might be difficult to get any concession whatsoever since the debate would then be effectively finished.
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2001