Wrong Questions

“Judge others by their questions rather than by their answers.” - Voltaire

In an earlier post I tangentially touched on a subject that fascinates me, so I decided to elaborate a bit. It is a phenomenon I call simply “wrong question”. Frequently when watching public debates develop I find myself frustrated by this wrong question phenomenon. I will illustrate with two real world examples; the first from the past and the second, contemporary and ongoing.

1. Seatbelts / Motorcyle Helmets

Years ago when various jurisdictions introduced legislation mandating the use of seatbelts, and later motorcycle helmets, a debate raged. A wide range of arguments were put forth by each side. Opponents fulminated at the thought of being constrained while proponents insisted such constraint was a small price to pay to reduce fatalities and injuries. Much of it all was personal opinion, of course, and not based on anything objective. In the end, though, I do believe the most compelling argument/justification made by the proponents and the one that won the day was that avoidable injuries resulting from failure to employ these safety devices created an undue and substantial cost to the medical care systems, all of which are, to greater or lesser degrees, government funded or subsidized. This argument is not disputable - as far as it goes. However, this argument assumes that the question to be answered is “If this activity can be shown to create unwarranted expense, should it not be proscribed?” One could word that in a variety of ways, but they would express the same theme. Leaving aside the obvious (but ignored) fact that if the answer is positive an inescapable progression leads to banning skiing, skydiving, scuba diving etc etc etc., it seems clear to me that this is simply the wrong question. It is the right question turned on its head. And the right question?

“Can public funding or subsidy of medical care be justified if it requires violating the individual’s inviolable right to go about his or her life peaceably doing whatever they see fit?”

2. Same Sex Marriage

I am sure I need not provide too much background here. The debate is simple: Should gays and lesbians in domestic partnership relationships enjoy the protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples by law? As with seatbelts, in this debate a million different arguments are made. Most of these arguments simply raise other questions or make it clear that this is a subject on which consensus is not now and never will be possible. The Christian right will never agree. The Liberal activists will press on forever. It is unsolvable. Why? Wrong question. The question should not be one of whether gays and lesbians should be given the same rights as married heterosexuals, it should be,

“Why is marriage (or domestic partnership or whatever label suits one) something in which the government is involved in any manner other than to provide a judicial system to adjudicate disputes arising from prenuptial agreements entered into by the parties?”

And, as a supplemental,

“Is it possible or desirable, in a country putatively governed on the basis of equality before the law, that some citizens should be afforded preferential treatment over others based on the socio-sexual relationships in which they engage?”

I could go on. I won’t. I hope these two examples make my point. If we are going to argue, let’s argue over the right question.