7.7 An argument under the microscope 299
Games belong to Greece in the sense of
being Greece’s property. It is quite
sufficient for her argument to say that the
Olympic Games belong in their
traditional location. And she has no need
to deny that they also belong to the whole
world, and should be governed by the
International Olympic Committee as
they are now. You would only insist on
the worst interpretation if you wanted to
find fault with the argument, which is a
form of prejudgement. Under the
principle of charity you assume the best
interpretation; then if you still want to
make negative criticisms, or present
counter-arguments, they will be fair
comment. Another way to put all this
would be to say that accusing the author
of a contradiction in this context would
be a rather cheap objection. It would be
like picking someone up for a slip of the
tongue, or for saying something that they
never really meant. In this respect it has
some resemblance to the ‘straw man’
argument that you saw in Chapter 4.9.
9 No, the argument does not adequately
support the conclusion. The conclusion
is a very strongly worded claim that the
only sensible and justifiable place for
the Games is Athens – now and always.
Words like ‘only’ and ‘always’ require
equally strong premises to underpin
them. The weakness of the author’s
argument is that she has not eliminated
all the possible alternatives, or looked at
all the possible counter-arguments. She
could reasonably conclude that there
is some justification for a permanent
site in Athens, and that it makes
good sense. For that she has provided
some support. She has not come near
to establishing that this is the only
acceptable conclusion. You could say
that this imbalance between reasons and
conclusion amounts to flawed reasoning.
Alternatively, you could describe it as a‘property’. ‘Property’ suggests ownership
or possession. If the Games were the
out-and-out property of one country, that
country would presumably have the right
to do as it pleased with them for its own
benefit – choose the time and place, make
the rules, keep all the profits. But the
author is not saying anything as extreme
as that. Just belonging somewhere is not
the same as being a possession, especially
when followed by the word ‘in’ rather
than ‘to’. This may seem a small detail,
but accurate analysis often depends on
small detail: a word here, a phrase there. It
might be perfectly reasonable to say that
the Olympic Games belong in Greece, but
that they are not the property of Greece.
In other words the Olympics remain the
property of all the nations that compete
in them, but historically their rightful
location is Greece. It could even be
pointed out that ‘Greece’ means a region
of the world where the ancient Olympics
took place, not the modern country
called Greece; and that is all that it means
to say the Games belong there. Under that
interpretation there is no contradiction.
Of course, an opponent of the argument
could just as reasonably reply that this is a
quibble: ‘belonging in’, ‘belonging to’,
‘property of’ all mean the same when it
comes to deciding whether the Games
should be in one country or shared
around. The author cannot have it both
ways. If the Games don’t belong to
Greece, they don’t belong in Greece
either, and that is all there is to it.
Which of these is the right interpretation
is ultimately for you to decide. In doing
so, remember the principle of charity
(Chapter 2.7, page 52). The way to apply
it is to ask: Would the author have made
these two statements if she thought they
contradicted each other? The answer is,
almost certainly, no. Why would she? She
doesn’t need to say that the Olympic