288 Unit 7 Critical reasoning: Advanced Level
Carla’s argument invokes no such principle.
She clearly believes that there is a significant
difference between copying a CD and
committing a serious theft. She even implies
that because of the very small loss involved,
and the very large incomes of those who incur
the loss, that there is some justice served by
pirating CDs. It is not that she thinks stealing
is all right: she thinks copying a CD is not the
same as stealing.
Who you pick as the winner depends on
whether you agree with Dieter that this issue is
wholly a matter of principle. If it is, then
Carla’s argument cannot stand up to it: clearly,
the pirating of a CD is a form of theft, and
Carla is wrong to do it, however negligible the
sums are. That is what distinguishes a
principle from other kinds of claim. You can’t
wriggle out of a principle by saying that it
applies under one set of circumstances and not
under others, especially if the ‘other’
circumstances are ones that happen to suit
you. So, if you agree with Dieter that this is a
question of principle, you would really have to
say that he wins the argument. If, however,
you think that the principle doesn’t stretch to
‘harmless’ actions like copying a CD, then
possibly you would say that Carla’s argument
shows more sense of proportion, and that
Dieter’s is too extreme and inflexible.
The point to remember, however, is that
arguments from principle are inflexible. If
something really is a principle, then there are
no exceptions. You could not have it as a
principle that stealing is ‘all right sometimes’,
and that people have to decide when it is and
when it isn’t all right. You might agree with
Carla that it is not the biggest crime in the world
to cheat the music industry out of a few cents,
but you couldn’t defend it on principle. In fact,
if you accept that cheating is wrong, and that
what you have done is cheating, then you also
have to accept that you are in the wrong – even
if you think it is a very minor offence.Commentary
The main difference is that Dieter’s is an
argument from principle. At least, it becomes an
argument from principle as a result of Carla’s
persistence. At first Dieter simply resists
lending the CD on the grounds that it is illegal
to make pirate copies and you can get into
trouble for it. When Carla points out that there
is no risk of being found out, Dieter changes
his direction and argues that it is wrong to do
it – on principle. He claims that pirating CDs is
cheating, and really just the same as any other
kind of theft: it makes no difference what the
amounts are or who the loser is. Stealing is
stealing, whether you take a fraction of a cent
from the profits of a huge corporation, or take
goods from a shop, or steal someone’s mobile
phone when they are not looking.little bit more, and a little bit more
still... In the end you’ll be saying
it’s OK to walk into a shop and fill
your pockets with anything that
takes your fancy – as long as no
one finds out.
Carla: That’s shoplifting. And if you really
think it’s the same as copying one
little CD you’ve got some very
mixed-up ideas.
Dieter: I’ve got mixed-up ideas?! You’re the
one –
Carla: Oh, I’m not listening to any more of
your self-righteous rubbish. Keep
your CD. I’ll borrow one from
someone else.
Compare Carla’s argument with Dieter’s.
How would you describe their different
standpoints, and the kind of reasons they
offer to support their positions? Do you
think there is a winner in this argument, and
if so who?