False Dichotomies
I take some heat from family and friends for not being heavily engaged in the public debates of our day. One reason for that is my firm believe that ethical politicians are mythical beasts. A vote is an endorsement, it says “I want this person to hold this position, and I will share the responsibility for putting them there”. Considered that way, how many politicians can you say that about?
The main reason I’m not as engaged though is because almost every issue has been reduced to a false either/or and it’s nearly impossible to convince either side that it’s not a two-way argument. I’m seeing things like “no one should die because they cannot afford health care”. Can you spot the false choice?
Should someone die because they refuse health care willingly? Should someone die because they willingly made choices that precluded or restricted their access to health care? Examination of the terms used, the meanings and implications of the words, is difficult. People die every day because there aren’t sufficient organs for transplants, because there aren’t sufficient health care professionals to treat everyone who needs treatment, because they chose to live in a place where emergency medicine is nearly impossible. All of these can be bound up in the concept of ”afford”, but it’s much more inflammatory when it just means “money”.
Even the miraculous healing of Jesus had a price, and in my opinion it was incredibly expensive by today’s standards. He healed people who had faith, sometimes almost unknowingly. Matthew 9:20-22
I’m not saying that human life should be weighed in gold, or that only the middle-class and above should have medicine and treatment. I am saying that this debate, like many others today, is too often reduced to either/or choices that make no sense and only serve to alienate and enrage. It’s hard to think about the details and intricacies though, it’s hard to consider what our words mean and how others might hear them. It’s easy to shout slogans and demonize the “other side”.
