Critical Thinking

Consequences

Thinking through the consequences of an argument allows us to determine whether or not it is acceptable.

Consider the following example…

 

• The consumption of alcohol is responsible for high crime rates, poverty, death and a general lowering of the quality of life, both physically and psychologically.
  XXX
• Therefore, the government has a duty to ban it.

An argument like this was used to defend the American Prohibition (banning of alcohol) act of the 1920s (see the 18th Amendment, 18/12/1917).  At face value, it looks quite convincing, but what would really follow if we were to accept the reasoning it presents us with…? 

 

First, it would be difficult to see how such an argument could be limited to alcohol use alone.  Any activity, for example gambling or smoking, which had a similarly negative effect should surely also be banned. 

You should be able to see that each of these questions raises doubts about whether the initial argument, as it stands, is acceptable. 

 

A more sophisticated example comes from a classic defence of freedom of speech. In chapter two of the book On Liberty, the philosopher John Stuart Mill presents us with the following, now famous, piece of reasoning (enshrined in the first amendment to the American constitution):

 

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. 

(Mill, On Liberty)

 

In plain English, Mill argues that there is no situation, except that which would lead to the direct physical harm of another human being, which could justify a restriction on how people express themselves. But just how convincing is this?  Mill attempts to justify his position by considering some of its positive consequences:

 

• Many beliefs that were suppressed in the past later turned out to be true (for example the church suppressing the belief that the earth was round and not at the centre of the universe).  We have no way of knowing the same won’t hold true of future beliefs, so they should not be suppressed.
  XXX
• Allowing for freedom of speech and expression would reduce the persecution of minority groups (for example, those discriminated against or silenced on grounds of gender, race, sexuality or religion).   
  XXX
• We have no way of knowing how strong an accepted practice or belief is until we question it. To use a more contemporary example, it was only when the suffragette movement of the early 1900s challenged the view that women were ‘too emotional’ to vote, that this belief was overturned (1928) and women were given equal voting rights to men.)

 

And each of the above ‘positive’ consequences strengthens Mill’s argument. 
XXX

But the argument doesn’t stop there. Mill believed the suppression of any belief or practice, no matter how repugnant, would damage the general applicability of this law. His reasoning was later echoed in Martin Luther King’s famous claim that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ (Letter from Birmingham Jail). Because of this, Mill argued there could be no circumstance (except the direct causing of physical harm to another individual) under which freedom of speech, thought or expression could be limited.

But this was quite a bold claim!  There are a range of practices that most people would regard as completely unacceptable which would, if we were to accept the consequences of Mill's reasoning, be permissible on the above grounds. For example, people would be free to:
XXX

• take drugs
• be as obscene or offensive as they liked as long as this caused no direct physical harm to another individual
• preach religious fundamentalism
• preach religious, racial or sexual intolerance
• share military secrets
• watch and share pornographic material of an extreme nature as long as they did not produce it.

 

And each of these possible outcomes, assuming we agree they are unacceptable, would weaken Mill’s position. 

 

Considering consequences, then, not only allows us to reach a decision about whether or not an argument is acceptable, but also to think about ways in which an argument could be modified in order to make it more so.  The political and social philosopher Joel Feinberg adapted Mill’s ‘harm’ principle to take into account the above points. He argued for an ‘offense principle’ which meant that personal freedoms could be restricted if they are used to cause harm and/or offence (which Mill thought was acceptable) to another individual. 

XXX

If you would like to practice examining and analysing consequences, have a go at the following quiz and check your answers against the suggested answers once you have submitted them.

XXX

Critical Thinking - Consequences Practice (Quiz)