Logic applicable to general public

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.