an argument

often times i hear an argument which goes like this: "if everyone does what you are now doing, the world is going to become.......". hence if i love salmon, then "if everyone eats salmon like you do, then the species would become extinct very soon. therefore do not love salmon; loving salmon is morally wrong". similarly, "if everyone is as kind and law-abiding as you are, then the police would have nothing to do and how are they going to earn their living? this would put them into a horrible position and therefore being kind and law-abiding is morally wrong". you know, you can always twist your morality to make yourself look like the best and most respectable person in the world.

the problem is that not everyone would love and eat salmon as i do. you may think, well, how do you know? there remains a possibility that this could happen. if you think that way, i would call your argument "statistical", or "non-principled", because what you are saying is that loving salmon per se doesn't seem to be problematic; it would become a problem only when everyone else in the world loves it too. hence it's based upon large numbers, thus statistical. and therefore, quite logically, i would counter-argue in a statistical way as well, which is that the probability of everyone loving salmon is very small, and thus the chance is extremely slim that your worry about salmon extinction would ever be confirmed.

so perhaps it's better to argue in a "principled" way, which is to compare a proposition against some absolute standard without considering the probabilistic reality. this would become "loving salmon is evil, and therefore it's always wrong, because whatever evil is by definition wrong". well, you may not be too happy with this because it seems unreasoned. yes, we believe in science and rationality don't we. so the following would be a little better: "salmon contains a lot of fat and is therefore bad for your health. so it's bad, or wrong, to love salmon". certainly, the same goes for smoking, not because of fat but other substances. in this case "health" has become the absolute standard. what if i do not believe in health? if you still want to convince me, you would need to come up with another standard, or reason.

hence by choosing reasons that are pleasant to most ears, we can argue for whatever we want. successful people are the ones who can equate their desires with good and pleasant reasons. then they convince others that they are morally right in their action toward desire satisfaction. when and how do young children learn this? i think this constitutes an interesting research question in developmental psychology.

i once heard a "principle", which is morally good-sounding but means almost nothing: "i do not lie unless it is necessary". is it that important to appear morally right all the time? it sounds even better than the following: "i lie only when it is necessary". the art of rhetoric, hong kong style (HK newspaper headlines could read: "Good Mother Run Over by Truck"; "Wicked Boyfriend Seeks his Revenge"; or "Malicious Rain Kills Three". even the rain!).