Logic applicable to general public

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): I felt very invigorated after reading Stefanus Haryanto's article in The Jakarta Post on Aug. 8 titled "Logic is the key to making fair judgments". Although he primarily discussed ethics in reaching legal judgments, I think that the principles he mentioned are applicable to the general public as well. His admonition to avoid argumentum ad hominem (attacking an idea by attacking its author) -- implying that we should use argumentum ad rem (an argument that touches upon the substance) instead -- should be observed by everyone who wishes to be considered cultured.

His suggestion that Indonesian law students study logic in order not "to disgrace the honor of our country" is also applicable to other learned professions. Every professional can disgrace our country by performing below accepted professional standards. In this regard it might be a good idea if students in law, medicine, engineering, psychology, and other professions are introduced through their respective curriculum to international standards of professional conduct. This will help our professionals avoid blunders that will make our country the laughing stock of the civilized world. Has it ever happened in any other country that a court hearing was delayed because the chief judge had a toothache?

Haryanto's article was very refreshing, because at this particular time in our history when common sense, logic, and decency are so frequently ignored, he makes an appeal to our sense of respectability and responsibility. He calls on us to be aware of fallacies contained in judgments presented to us. This particular call is especially important, in my opinion, because we have the habit of treating statements coming from sources of power with special reverence.

Ultimately this attitude is leading us towards accepting the dictum "the King can do no wrong". The problem with this is that in our society every power holder regards himself as a king. Thus whereas in England this dictum means that it is the ministers, and not the King, who are responsible for the way the country is governed, in our country it means that every power holder, big and small, cannot be held responsible for whatever they may do. Thus a mayor who hits a bus driver is not guilty, because he has power. This has become a stock argument taken, for granted by the public.

It is in this regard that this call to scrutinize every statement for possible fallacies becomes very important. In this way we will be able to protect ourselves from storing false knowledge in our memory on which we make further judgements. I believe, however, that to make this step courage is needed.

Haryanto's article is also timely, because we are now at a crossroads. The latest developments in the way government officials communicate with the public suggest that we are confronted with a choice between honest and honorable communication and communicating in a way in which force and political power are the dominant factors. Our choice in this respect will determine whether we are heading towards a democratic and free society or whether we will remain trapped in a repressive feudal society.

Ultimately, our future will be decided by three things, that is by our attitude towards statements, no matter where they come from; by the care we give to every statement we make; and by our attitude towards others who happen to hold different opinions.

In facing a statement that comes to us we can be either critical in a healthy way or submissive. If we choose to be critical, we will ask each time whether a statement is acceptable or unacceptable on the basis of a set of criteria. Once again, this needs courage. Do we have the courage to refute a statement that is totally improbable or illogical? Do we have the courage to scrutinize a statement that comes from a powerful source?

It is this choice which will make us a nation capable of seeing its future clearly and confidently, or a nation which will always face the future hesitantly.

During this critical time it is also important that we weigh carefully every argument we make. In addition to checking the substance of our argument, it is also important that we do not mislead the public. This requires not only fairness, but also a sense of responsibility.

It is important to remember that there is always a strong temptation to exploit the ignorance of the other side and capitalize on comparative strengths to win a particular argument.

If we yield to this temptation we will indulge ourselves in an argumentum ad ignorantiam, which exploits the ignorance of the public about the etiology of revolutionary movements, for instance; an argument which exploits public ignorance about things like treason, conspiracy, turmoil, insurgence, and coup d'etats. It is easy for anyone with power to force the public to accept an official statement in matters like this. But is it wise to do so? Is it responsible?

The future of our country also depends upon the way we approach our "adversaries" in controversial matters. Are we going to talk to them or suppress their views? This will determine whether we will become a truly democratic society where everyone has equal rights to express his or her view or whether we will become an autocratic society in which a portion of our people will always be subjected to coercion.

Once again, we are at a crossroads. We can create a society in which empathy prevails and justice is observed, or a society in which logic is suppressed and justice denied. Not everyone can see this crossroads, but those who see it have the moral obligation to make others see it and help them make a choice based on their conscience.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.