Advocatus Diaboli is Latin for Devil’s Advocate. Its original use (which persists to this day) was to describe an official of the Catholic church whose job it was to argue the case against canonization (here’s hoping the one for JP Duece is a good one). The more common use, these days, is to describe someone who takes the opposite position in an argument, often simply for the sake of opposition.
The hardest part of playing Devil’s Advocate is when you don’t actually agree with the position you are taking. I think that in some ways this is the truest test of one’s argumentative skills; it’s much easier to argue from passion than it is to argue simply from facts, and it’s nigh impossible to generate passion for a position you dislike (unless you just happen to like arguments). Taking the Devil’s Advocate position can also be beneficial: by arguing the other side, you can often discover flaws in, or better counter-arguments for, your own position.
It’s something that I used to like to do (because hey, I like arguments). But I’ve noticed something troubling. I’m having a harder and harder time playing a good Devil’s Advocate. Which is to say, I am no longer able to argue against a position that I support.
This bothers me because I think this indicates that I can no longer argue dispassionately. If I have a strong position on an issue, I can’t distance myself from that position; when I try to take a position counter to my beliefs, I spend most of my time thinking, “Man, this is a stupid argument,” or something similar.
A good example of this is the Social Security debate. I can’t come up with a good argument for privatizing Social Security that doesn’t seem either to have an obvious counter, to be a simple strawman or to be plain dishonest. Maybe it’s because the arguments really are stupid. Or maybe it’s because I’ve just become dogmatic. That second option worries me.
Given that it doesn’t really happen for issues that I don’t care strongly about (I am perfectly willing to argue both sides of a gun control argument), that second option seems like it could be the truth. I think it may be a consequence of becoming more politically aware, and at the same time becoming more strident in my defense of my positions. I’m so tied to my position that I can’t countenance arguing against it.
So, is dogma bad in and of itself? Or is it only bad when it’s obviously flawed? Or is it ok for me to have this problem? Is it even a problem? I don’t know. It’s (obviously) something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and something I’ll keep thinking about.