Is it legitimate to win a moral, political or ethical argument by using logical methods?
- If you demonstrate that an opponent's statements are somehow illogical, the reason the opponent is considered defeated is still non-rational (the fact that a person holding contradictory or absurd beliefs is considered stupid or ridiculous).
- Moral/political beliefs go "deeper" than what people make in statements, therefore even though they may make a statement that can be logically refuted (through contradiction or absurdity), their actual moral beliefs are not contradictory or absurd, they just used language incorrectly.
I think it's in bad faith to try to do this is because I don't think anyone believes that a person actually holds the absurd or contradictory statements made, it is just useful to discredit them or make them look stupid by taking their words "at face value" and showing how they are illogical (this isn't meant to refer to all cases).
In some way it seems like non-rational methods of winning arguments are more honest, in that they seem to attack the roots of moral beliefs or ideology, since they are bound up with the non-rational world of culture, character, ethnicity, religion, psychology etc, and are therefore more truthful or honest about what moral disagreement or debate is really about.
Does my stance make sense? Why or why not?