Kroll, Ethics, and Statis

Kroll, Ethics, and Statis

             In the article “Arguing about Public Issues” Kroll very nicely discusses how different ethical systems provide strategies to examine controversies differently.  He states that the problem with such strategies is they limit the scope of out argument. The “applied ethics” function based on pre-determined premises and conditions. In that sense, they are only theory applications – there are set theories about everything, ethical theories in this case, and our students are asked to apply those ethical theories to examine issues at hand. In this sense, Kroll argues, there is no inquiry into truth, but an attempt to fit in the argument into a frame that has already been prepared in advance. As a result, the arguing parties can hardly come out of their boxes, and that in turn results into impossibility to practice argument as an inquiry.

                        In this sense, it sounds very convincing that if ethical approach is applied in an argument without much caution, we run the risk of shutting door for any reconciliatory, fruitful arguments. In such a situation, he quotes Anthony Weston, “[B]y and large, the principles are taken for as given before the practical inquiry even starts” (106). As someone who would like to practice argument as a form of inquiry, I find this approach to ethics in argument very useful.

                        However, I also feel that Kroll is taking argument as an ideal form of inquiry as if the people involved in an argument wouldn’t have any pre-conceived/ pre-determined ideas. In fact, an argumentative situation arises due to the lack of agreement on an issue. In this sense, every person who is there to argue will have his/ her ethical/ ideological stance. And it would be impractical to invite those people to get involved in that argument to find out truth behind the controversial issue having dumped those ideas somewhere else. Kroll cites examples of gun control and similar controversial issues, and wants the arguing parties to leave behind all their ethical stances and start arguing so that they can reach the best possible solution. But I think, in such a situation, what would work best is the idea of statis theory. Here, instead of asking the opposing parties to give up their all ethical/ ideological or whatever, pre-conceived ideas, we can encourage them to agree with minimum common grounds from where to start their debate. Since we know we have our personal preferences even though we might want to suppress them on practical grounds, consciously, they are bound to guide the way we approach any issue. It would be an ideal situation if we could really have a dialogue like Kroll imagines. While reading the article, I was always waiting for Kroll to bring in the idea of statis, but he didn’t. Although it feels nice to imagine an argument on issues that involve ethical questions (which I think are almost all, not just the few Kroll mentions) the way Kroll does, but in practical terms, it’ll perhaps be more helpful it we bring in statis theory even into the discussion of ethics.