Grounding in Controversial First Principles

§4.5 Grounding in Controversial First Principles Most premises can be grounded in uncontroversial propositions or in verifiable assertions of fact. Some premises, however, can only be grounded in propositions that are sufficiently controversial to make their acceptance pr...

§4.5 Grounding in Controversial First Principles Most premises can be grounded in uncontroversial propositions or in verifiable assertions of fact. Some premises, however, can only be grounded in propositions that are sufficiently controversial to make their acceptance problematic for people who do not already agree with them. Consider the example of euthanasia. Those who oppose euthanasia frequently argue that euthanasia is murder. Suppose they rely on an argument like this: 1. The wrongful taking of human life is murder. 2. Euthanasia is a wrongful taking of human life. 3. Therefore, euthanasia is murder. If this argument is intended to persuade a supporter of euthanasia, it obviously must be further grounded. The weak spot is probably the minor premise: most supporters of euthanasia would not be willing to accept the proposition that euthanasia involves the “wrongful” taking of human life. The difficulty here is in figuring out how to further ground the proposition that euthanasia is wrongful. Most attempts at grounding this proposition seem to lead to premises that would be no more acceptable to supporters of euthanasia than the proposition to be grounded. To give just one example, some opponents of euthanasia argue that life, even when it is painful or hopeless, is preferable to death. Suppose their argument implicitly goes something like this: 1. To make someone worse off is wrong. 2. Euthanasia makes a person worse off. 3. Therefore, euthanasia is wrong. But it is doubtful that this syllogism would provide any better grounding as far as supporters of euthanasia are concerned. Most euthanasia advocates would probably dispute the proposition that death can never make a terminally ill patient better off. It might be possible to go further; one could assert, for instance, that the aches and pains of life are nothing compared to the horrors of death—but it is far from clear how that proposition could be further grounded. Either you believe it or you don't, or so it seems. By now we have arrived at or very near a point at which further explanation or justification for a premise is impossible. This is the aim of the grounding process. Yet despite having properly grounded the premise, we still have not arrived at a bedrock proposition that must be accepted. Unfortunately, there is no way out of this difficulty. Just because a premise cannot be further explained or justified does not mean that everyone must automatically accept it. Every system of thought contains certain first principles, or axioms, that cannot be explained within the system; they are propositions that simply must be accepted as true, and on which the rest of the system of thought is built. Grounding a premise can thus explain and justify it only to one who already accepts the axioms on which it is based. One of the things that makes communication difficult in our world is that different people sometimes hold different and even contradictory axioms, causing them occasionally to move in what may with some justice be called different systems of thought. Moreover, convincing someone to accept a new axiom, particularly where doing so also involves rejecting a previously held axiom, is one of life's most difficult tasks. Persuasion on this level more closely resembles a religious conversion than a voluntary and rational decision to accept an argument. From these observations the advocate can draw two lessons. First, all the advocate can ever do is follow his or her premises to ground, wherever they may lead. The most important task for the advocate where grounding is concerned is simply to recognize when a premise is incapable of further explanation or justification and is thus adequately grounded. Beyond this point the advocate cannot go.  Second, when there is a choice, the advocate should attempt to ground premises in those propositions that the judge is most likely to accept. When possible, the advocate should avoid grounding premises in highly controversial, axiomatic principles that the judge may not share. At the very least, the advocate should always try to offer an uncontroversial route to ground as an alternative to a more controversial route. The advocate's goal, after all, is to win the case, not to make a convert of the judge.