Rock paper scissors consequentialism

I've noticed that with big topics about societal issues or values, there are often three types of conversations:

1. There are conversations about where we are at.
2. There are conversations about where we should go.
3. There are conversations about how to get there.

Type 1 is to be a descriptive conversation, about what is. Type 2 is a normative conversation, about what should be. Type 3 is usually a constructive conversation, about what's effective.

Several times, this mental model helped me understand the root cause of disagreements that were otherwise difficult to pinpoint. I have seen discussions get heated, despite 90%+ common ground within each of these areas, because there was disagreement about what the stakes of the argument ought to be. The conflict wasn't about about the facts brought to the table, it was about whether to frame this as "where we are at," vs. "where we should go," vs. "how to get there."

To take a pretty sanguine example: let's say Alice wants to talk whether recent tech acquisitions are anti-competitive (type 1), but Bob tries to reframe it as whether Alice wants more or less FTC intervention (type 3), and he clearly doesn't engage with her original point. Someone trying to reframing the conversation into their preferred terrain is often motivated by a genuine vision of what a more productive, society-wide conversation looks like. However, when it is twisted too far, it becomes "I want to avoid that point, because conceding it will have consequences to my own framing of the topic," and the reframing descends to a fallacy of appealing to consequences. Here are some common ways I see this reframing tactic carried out:

• Attacking type 1: You can't talk about problems until you have solutions to propose
  • There are issues in society forever and always, and since we can't discuss them all, then you must talk about the ones that we can fix.
• Attacking type 2: You can't talk about "ought" until we talk more about "is"
  • Too much conversation about an ideal, perfect future takes away from the current day issues that we haven't yet fully acknowledged as a group.
• Attacking type 3: You can't disagree on "how" without sabotaging our "ought"
  • If you disagree with the efficacy of any particular policy, then you're endangering the desirability of our shared goal in the minds of others.

Notice that all three of these lines of argumentation use tenuous appeals to consequences. It would be fine to expand the conversation to a discussion of wider import, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the original point cannot be spoken about because of these second or third order effects. Usually the perpetrator of this tactic is unshakeably focused on the battlegrounds of their own opinion. In the previous example, Bob cannot talk about anti-trust without bringing up whether Lina Khan is a net positive or negative. To Bob, just entertaining the topic in someone else's framing feels like a consequential illocutionary act that gives up ground to an opposing side (one who may not even be part of the conversation!).

Some quick examples can make these lines of argumentation more concrete. This may also irritate anyone who disagrees with particular premises or conclusions, so strap in, and please put on your good faith discourse hat! I'm sure I could make a similar argument in the opposite direction for most of the below opinions, but I'm trying to focus on the structure of the rational, and not the specifics of these issues.

You can't talk about problems until you have solutions to propose

Often when income inequality is observed as a growing problem (a type 1 discussion), more neoliberal or fiscally-conservative folks bristle at a perceived attack on how the current, nominally capitalist economic system is organized to maximize prosperity (a type 3 reframing). If someone is noting an issue with inequality, will they next disagree with an open, market-based system that relies on some amount of inequality? Are they demanding a change without any suggestions for a better approach? Anyone pointing to these problems of inequality is frequently dismissed as being idealistic, or promoting a vision that disrupts a wider status quo. In reality the specifics of their criticism may be quite targeted and not be accompanied by any prescription, nor do they need one to be valid.

You can't talk about "ought" until we talk more about "is"

During the racial reckoning, attempts to talk about a future with color blind equality (a type 2 discussion) were frequently shot down for calling into question what is a current, racially unequal reality (a type 1 reframing). I have been in a conversation that went something like this: someone mentioned how great a future world would be, if race was as much thought about as hair color currently is. Three other folks at the table exchanged looks, and then began attacking the stakes of the discussion itself. Is it even fair to compare hair color to skin color, in a world where the inequities of race are still so pressing? Despite the dogpile discussion, I don't think that anyone there would disagree with Dr. King's original sentiment, to "look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin." I assume that to those three opponents in the discussion, even holding a conversation about the existence of that future felt like it robs the current issues of their impetus and necessity.

You can't disagree on "how" without sabotaging our "ought"

When concerns of implementation and efficacy are raised (a type 3 discussion), I've experienced the shoutdown for being perceived as a threat to a shared goal (a type 2 reframing). When discussing the solutions to rising cost and access barriers within higher education, I see clear economic reasons to question the effectiveness of student debt forgiveness without other, more fundamental interventions first¹. I don't think someone who stakes out a position of unilateral student loan forgiveness has different goals: widespread access to education and opportunity, decreasing the barrier of rising educational costs, and freeing debt-burdened adults to have greater financial freedom and future prosperity. But any daylight between opinions about efficacy is treated as damaging to the overall goals. Even worse yet, this easily escalates to questioning of intentions: If you really knew how important these goals were, if you genuinely wanted to accomplish them, would you be raising tough questions? Potentially giving ammunition to "the other side"? Any defense you mount that tries to explain this distinction is less clear and convincing than the simple line of attack.

Where from here

Let me try and find a catchy call for action here. Divisive disagreements have been all the rage (literally) in the U.S. for over ten years now. My preference after observing the pitfalls above, is to try and avoid them both when used against me, and also as they apply to my own thinking. For example, I often find myself the victim of the second and third attempts of reframing, but most often prone to perpetrating the first kind in responding to others. If you're in discussion with me and you notice this, please call it out! "I notice you're reacting to effects of a solution I wasn't even advocating," is a great way to head off that pitfall of discussion.

I also have tried my hand at naming this conversational anti-pattern, similar to some other informal fallacy names². I think of this as "rock paper scissors consequentialism." It is much like an appeal to consequences, and when used to distract from the previous discussion then it is clearly a type of red herring. More specifically though, the circular way that this reframing can be used is like rock paper scissors: whatever the stakes of the argument you set forth, if I change the stakes to my preferred terrain then your argument looks like it yields objectionable conclusions.³

If you discuss big values issues frequently or intensely with friends, colleagues, or the internet (ranked in the order that I would recommend), maybe share this mental model with them. Hopefully a shared meta-awareness for the "stakes" of a discussion is a helpful tool, especially when those stakes evolve or get called into question throughout the discussion.

Footnotes

1. This falls prey to: 1. moral hazard, 2. subsidizing consumption while restricting supply, 3. regressively transferring wealth. Assuming no other long-term interventions are involved, widespread student loan forgiveness may actually raise cost over the long-term, and decrease access to higher education in the long-term. ↩

2. These illustrative names excited me most when I read about the motte-and-bailey fallacy for the first time. With how vivid the term is, the tactic becomes tough to miss. ↩

3. It's also worth noting that some legs of this tactic feel very similar to a moralistic fallacy. ↩