Posted on 01/04/2021 6:19:39 AM PST by Kaslin
As a professional rhetorician and teacher of rhetoric—the art of persuasion—for over 35 years, I have seen a lot of bad arguments. And not all of them have come from my college students. Not by a long shot.
But in all that time, the worst argument I have ever heard, by far, is this one: “If it only saves one life….”
It’s a line big-government types love to trot out whenever they want good-hearted, well-meaning people to accept some sketchy, illogical, oppressive measure because, you know, it just might save one person’s life. An example is socialized medicine, which would make health care worse for far more people than it helped.
Unfortunately, even many conservatives fall for this line, because they’re generally good-hearted, well-meaning people. Yet in almost every case, it is a bad argument, even a ridiculous argument, for several reasons.
First, it is completely irrational, based solely on emotion. It says nothing about the actual merits of the policy or proposition being put forward. It merely attempts to tug at people’s heartstrings — no one wants to see anybody die, right? — while making those who would oppose the idea on moral or logical grounds appear cruel.
Basically, it’s a form of ad hominem attack, a way to make your opponent look bad without actually addressing what they’re saying—probably because you can’t argue the point logically.
Along with that, the “if it only saves one life” argument is also self-righteous and condescending. It’s not only a way of making your opponent look (and hopefully feel) bad, it’s a way of making yourself look better — as if you, and only you, really care about people. Anyone who disagrees with your (cockamamie) idea obviously just wants people to die.
But mostly it’s a bad argument because it’s disingenuous, at the very least, if not downright hypocritical. For example, those who want to ban “assault rifles” because doing so “might save one life” wouldn’t dream of banning alcohol, even though alcohol kills far more people than AR-15s. So do knives. So do falls, for that matter.
Here’s an idea: Let’s just ban ladders. No? Why not? After all, if it just saves one life, it’s worth it, right? What are you, heartless?
How about securing our borders to prevent violent criminals and people carrying deadly diseases from entering this country unimpeded? How about staunching the flow of narcotics — including heroin, 80 percent of which comes across our southern border and which kills 15,000 Americans each year?
No, the “if it only saves one life” crowd remains firmly opposed to any such measures. That’s because they’re not really interested in saving lives. What they really want is to deprive us of our liberties — liberties they don’t believe we ought to have — under the guise of being caring and humane.
Keep that in mind whenever you hear politicians, in response to a crisis, propose draconian measures in order to “save lives.” For every life “saved,” it’s likely many more will be lost or ruined.
LOL! Data outliers, but OH so important! :-)
I say ban dihydrogen monoixide (DHMO). It kills thousands every year.
Another one is the “do nothing unless you can prove with 100% certainty it does cause harm” aka the “uncertainty principle”.
What’s ironic is that the liberals tout all three idiotic axioms.
If it saves one life it’s worth it.
We have to do something
Do not do anything.
RUN HIM OVER and SQUASH HIM LIKE A BUG!
Idiot shouldn’t have been Jay walking anyway.
Drugs no more kill people than guns do. People sometimes kill, and more often don't, using drugs or guns.
No, the “if it only saves one life” crowd remains firmly opposed to any such measures.
Actually, I seem to recall “if it only saves one life” tossed out on FR as a pro-Drug-War argument.
Those supporting the Brady waiting period way back when used that argument.
After it was implemented, some newspaper reported that a woman whose ex had threatened to kill her tried to buy a handgun and was told, due to the new law, she’d have to wait five days.
In the meantime, hubby came over, kicked in the sliding glass door and stabbed her to death with a Garand bayonet.
The newspaper asked “What if the law kills just one person?” No answer, and the story disappeared. I think the Rifleman reprinted it.
I’ve yet to face that argument, but would ask the same question, and fully expect the answer would be “Look! There’s Elvis!”
When ever the powers that be or what ever mob is screaming about ‘’the common good’’ it’s important to remember that what ever is for the ‘’common good’’ is neither common nor good.
How about, if possible, avoid driving on an ice covered road?
Now you are on the right track, where I grew up we found huge numbers of quartz arrowheads and spear points, all of which should be collected and pulverized into powder to prevent injury. Yes, it would cost a lot of money but IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE etc. etc. Anyone who owns such real estate should bear the cost of removing these dangerous prehistoric weapons or the state should take possession of the property. The need is obvious but I believe I am the first to suggest this so I believe I should somehow benefit financially for my brilliant suggestion. Perhaps I could be granted a few thousand acres from which these hazards have been removed?
While the answer should be obvious to any thinking (and for that matter, feeling) person, this is the very kind of question that I suspect, will tie the driverless car industry in knots. Any coder/programmer who (far removed from the scene by time and distance) instructs the bus/truck/car to run over the pedestrian will be directly culpable for his death. In as much as his programming was done in performance of his official capacity for the auto maker, or a contractor, they would likely be culpable as well.
The "right" answer to your question, which should be arrived at in a matter of a second or two, will tie up lawyers, litigators, legislators, the insurance industry and the auto industry for years. I do suspect that if the concept of the driverless car fails it will be because of this sort of thing rather than the technical challenges of actually making them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.