Steven D. Smith on "Smuggling"

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2014/11/steven-d-smith-on-smuggling.html ^ | Jan 8, 2015 | Mark Hausam

[Ray76]

Below is an excerpt by one of my favorite authors, Steven D. Smith, from his book The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse

In this excerpt, Dr. Smith reveals how loaded terms and ideas are often used in modern social-political discourse to "smuggle in" substantive ideas without having to acknowledge their sources or argue for them substantively. He examines briefly the concepts of "freedom," "equality," and "reciprocity" (the idea that we should treat others as we would like to be treated) and points out how they can be used and often are used to "smuggle."

[Ray76]

The Smith excerpt in the linked article provides context for this:

From Mar 3, 2015 - Opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Marriage Protection Act (page 91)

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=642402&event=4AN12324A

Thus, what the federal district court has done is to declare an entirely new concept of "marriage" a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution. It is, plainly and simply, circular reasoning –- it assumes the conclusion of the matter, i.e., that marriage as newly defined is a fundamental right, in the premise of the question without acknowledging that a change of terms has occurred. As one federal appeals court judge has noted: "To now define the previously recognized fundamental right to 'marriage' as a concept that includes the new notion of 'same-sex marriage' amounts to a dictionary jurisprudence, which defines terms as convenient to attain an end."[24] Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 391 (4th Cir. 2014) (Niemeyer, J., dissenting).

The ostensible reason for the federal district court's judicial sleight of hand is apparent enough: conferring fundamental-right status upon a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding is, to say the least, curious.

[24] This not-so-subtle redefinition of "marriage" is an example of what law professor Steven D. Smith calls "smuggling," which "implies that an argument is tacitly importing something that is left hidden or unacknowledged -- some undisclosed assumption or premise." Steven D. Smith, The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse 35 (2010). Smith goes on to explain that such a tactic is "illicit" when making the undisclosed premise

"explicit would be controversial: you would have to defend the premise, and you don't want to do that. Or your premise might be illicit because you yourself do not believe it: you like your conclusion, maybe, but you don't actually believe what would be necessary to support this particular argument for that conclusion. Perhaps, if you were to make your unstated premise explicit, you would be convicted of inconsistency, because you have contradicted that premise on other occasions. Or your premise might be illicit because the conventions of the discourse you are engaging in purport to exclude it."

In this instance, the first two reasons Smith offers for "smuggling" are the most likely to apply. Proponents of the new definition of marriage do not want to have to defend the premise behind their change of definition because doing so would necessarily require the introduction of legislation to effect the change rather than a court order. Also, as is explained in note 31 and the accompanying text, the new definition of marriage put forward by proponents of same-sex marriage carries implications that proponents themselves either do not believe or do not want explicitly revealed at this time because they know that a large majority of the populace is not ready to accept those implications.

[wastoute]

Best explanation yet was the “virtue signaling” story from several days ago.