RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
The following article was linked onto msn.com, and is interesting not only in itself, and as an example of the adversarial approach. Original article found here.
Essentially, the ABI is an advocacy group for restaurants that serve alcohol, and, as such, opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving on many fronts. The article specifically discusses the merits of ABI's attempts to convince donors to stop contributing to MADD's lobbying efforts.
There's something specific that I thought worthy of bringing up, which is the article's illustration of the adversarial approach (whether this is intended by the author is up to the reader). Specifically,
I would argue that ABI takes an absolutist approach because their opponent, MADD, does the same. I'm personally not a fan of MADD; I think they took a legitimate concern and turned it into a moral crusade. Regardless, both sides end up taking extremist views to oppose one another. Sound familiar?
Well it's not just politics where extreme opposition is encouraged and compromise becomes a liability; the American legal system is built around the assumption of adversarial advocacy. An American attorney is expected to put forth every plausible (and sometime implausible) argument in favor of their client's interests/positions/innocence/etc. The basic notion is that extreme advocacy is necessary to ensure a fair trial where the opposition is doing everything it can to argue the opposite; i.e. if I don't argue it, I'm leaving my client at the other guy's mercy.
I make this long-winded post to point out how built-in this assumption of the necessity of absolute advocacy is to our thinking. And by "our", I mostly mean American but it could extend to general Western thought. The idea that "I must argue absolutely in my favor, and any compromise or moderation will just be giving my opponent an edge" is built into our legal system, our political system, and even our own conduct here in the Study.
By its very nature, I realize this post is kinda open-ended. It could go into a discussion of MADD, or of the adversarial assumption, or both. Regardless, thoughts?
Essentially, the ABI is an advocacy group for restaurants that serve alcohol, and, as such, opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving on many fronts. The article specifically discusses the merits of ABI's attempts to convince donors to stop contributing to MADD's lobbying efforts.
There's something specific that I thought worthy of bringing up, which is the article's illustration of the adversarial approach (whether this is intended by the author is up to the reader). Specifically,
I would argue that ABI takes an absolutist approach because their opponent, MADD, does the same. I'm personally not a fan of MADD; I think they took a legitimate concern and turned it into a moral crusade. Regardless, both sides end up taking extremist views to oppose one another. Sound familiar?
Well it's not just politics where extreme opposition is encouraged and compromise becomes a liability; the American legal system is built around the assumption of adversarial advocacy. An American attorney is expected to put forth every plausible (and sometime implausible) argument in favor of their client's interests/positions/innocence/etc. The basic notion is that extreme advocacy is necessary to ensure a fair trial where the opposition is doing everything it can to argue the opposite; i.e. if I don't argue it, I'm leaving my client at the other guy's mercy.
I make this long-winded post to point out how built-in this assumption of the necessity of absolute advocacy is to our thinking. And by "our", I mostly mean American but it could extend to general Western thought. The idea that "I must argue absolutely in my favor, and any compromise or moderation will just be giving my opponent an edge" is built into our legal system, our political system, and even our own conduct here in the Study.
By its very nature, I realize this post is kinda open-ended. It could go into a discussion of MADD, or of the adversarial assumption, or both. Regardless, thoughts?
