Any philosopher, whether they reside primarily in an armchair or a university, will tell you that for an argument to have any meaning, you must first establish its parameters. What evidence is considered reliable, the kind of language that will be allowed, and, even, whether the subject of the argument can really be said to have a single conclusion or not - all this must be determined at the beginning of the debate. Otherwise, the argument is of no use to anyone. Which brings us, inevitably, to a debate that is lacking just such parameters: should the government move to legalize prostitution within this dominion called Canada, yes or no?
There are currently two broad camps at the national level who are campaigning for either the yea or nay sides of this argument. But had they read the paragraph written above, they would know that their argument has already begun on the wrong foot - the two sides are talking past each other almost entirely: those who are in favor of legalization believe that the parameters ought to be set at what is practical in public policy, and those who desire to keep prostitution illegal believe the parameters ought to be set in what serves public morality and decency. These conflicting parameters are where the argument should first begin, not end.
Delving a little deeper reveals that the bigger argument at hand is the age old debate about practicality vs. principles; how is society to be ruled, by what's moral or what works? Yes, every society has made compromises with these two forces, but when it comes to activities that are taboo even today, this tension becomes particularly strained.
The pragmatists certainly have some decent evidence on their side. History has shown that prostitution will be with us forever and that every attempt to thwart it has failed. But on the side of the moralizers, it is fair to say that no parent would ever want their daughter to become a sex worker, and that prostitution threatens that most basic building block of society, the family.
It is interesting to observe that both the principled and the practical camps have borrowed from one another's rhetoric to strengthen their arguments. Those who are in favor of legalization will often say that the government has a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable, linking open and regulated prostitution with better public health and safety. And those whom are in favor of prohibition will often cite statistics and studies that "prove beyond a doubt" that legalized prostitution does not cut down on human trafficking, drug smuggling, nor gang related activity.
The rhetorical twists get even more vehement as each side accuses the other of false parameters and unrealistic goals: the legalizers declare that morality has no place in public policy, and accuse non-conformists of wanting vulnerable men and women to suffer. The objections and counter accusations by the moralists are obvious - legalizers want to destroy the family and allow regulated human slavery. Thus, the debate unravels into a mud slinging contest, the joke being that neither side will admit that the other's mud has any affect on their camp, but are happy to call the others mudslingers nonetheless.
So what is the right answer? For my part, I'd argue that's the wrong question.
If we are unwilling to listen to one another's arguments, we are ultimately going to be less informed, no matter what the debate. And while it may be hard to keep from politicizing every aspect of an issue, our legislators, justices, and expert witnesses need to assess all the evidence honestly, and draw the conclusion that fits it best. In the end, what debates require more than evidence, language, and conclusions are people willing to listen and compromise.
