Page 77 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 77
Lecture IV
not a very convincing one, but which is clear, and then I will take real ex-
amples.
Someone says “Peter works, so he’s going to succeed”: A, therefore C.
And as an objection to that argument, he is reminded of the following:
“Many people do not work, and nevertheless succeed”. He is given the ex-
ample of such and such, who spends his life resting, but who, having stocks
and shares, thrives wonderfully. Let us try to see the underlying mechanism.
What have you shown in saying “Many people do not work and neverthe-
less succeed”? You have shown that there is no connection between X does
not work and X does not succeed, between not working and not succeeding.
And that fact of having shown the lack of a connection between not work-
ing and not succeeding is easily taken as a refutation of your opponent’s ar-
gument, which moved from work to success.
Now, I am going to give you examples which I have really observed, and
then I shall try to explain them with my theory. You know that in France
at the moment, there are great debates on the status of immigrant workers.
There are discussions especially about whether they should have the right to
vote, at least in local elections. Those who are in favour of giving immigrant
workers the right to vote often rely on the following argument: “They pay
taxes, so they have a right to vote”. Indeed, immigrant workers do pay taxes
in as much as they get wages, and the argument, which seems a very reasona-
ble one, consists in concluding that they must be allowed to vote. At a certain
time, the supporters of that point of view would stick up posters with an im-
migrant going to the tax-collector and bringing the money for his taxes: the
tax-collector would take the money with a big smile. In a corner of the poster,
you could see the same immigrant at the poll-station; but there he would be
pushed out in a hostile and indignant way. The contrast, which was supposed
to highlight the absurdity of the situation, was designed to suggest that when
you paid taxes, you had the right to vote. In a debate on the right to vote for
immigrants, which was reported in the papers, someone said the following to
object to the argument: “So, in your mind, those who do not pay taxes should
not vote”. The first argument was: “They pay taxes, so they have the right to
vote”, and the other picks that up and says: “So, in your mind, those who
pay no taxes do not have the right to vote”. The refutation was an extremely
clever one, because in the history of the French democracy, one of the great
dates was 1848 (I think it is 1848) when universal suffrage was introduced,
when the right to vote was granted to all citizens, irrespective of whether or
not they paid taxes, whereas before only those people who paid taxes had the
right to vote. So, the position of the first speaker was made out to seem con-
not a very convincing one, but which is clear, and then I will take real ex-
amples.
Someone says “Peter works, so he’s going to succeed”: A, therefore C.
And as an objection to that argument, he is reminded of the following:
“Many people do not work, and nevertheless succeed”. He is given the ex-
ample of such and such, who spends his life resting, but who, having stocks
and shares, thrives wonderfully. Let us try to see the underlying mechanism.
What have you shown in saying “Many people do not work and neverthe-
less succeed”? You have shown that there is no connection between X does
not work and X does not succeed, between not working and not succeeding.
And that fact of having shown the lack of a connection between not work-
ing and not succeeding is easily taken as a refutation of your opponent’s ar-
gument, which moved from work to success.
Now, I am going to give you examples which I have really observed, and
then I shall try to explain them with my theory. You know that in France
at the moment, there are great debates on the status of immigrant workers.
There are discussions especially about whether they should have the right to
vote, at least in local elections. Those who are in favour of giving immigrant
workers the right to vote often rely on the following argument: “They pay
taxes, so they have a right to vote”. Indeed, immigrant workers do pay taxes
in as much as they get wages, and the argument, which seems a very reasona-
ble one, consists in concluding that they must be allowed to vote. At a certain
time, the supporters of that point of view would stick up posters with an im-
migrant going to the tax-collector and bringing the money for his taxes: the
tax-collector would take the money with a big smile. In a corner of the poster,
you could see the same immigrant at the poll-station; but there he would be
pushed out in a hostile and indignant way. The contrast, which was supposed
to highlight the absurdity of the situation, was designed to suggest that when
you paid taxes, you had the right to vote. In a debate on the right to vote for
immigrants, which was reported in the papers, someone said the following to
object to the argument: “So, in your mind, those who do not pay taxes should
not vote”. The first argument was: “They pay taxes, so they have the right to
vote”, and the other picks that up and says: “So, in your mind, those who
pay no taxes do not have the right to vote”. The refutation was an extremely
clever one, because in the history of the French democracy, one of the great
dates was 1848 (I think it is 1848) when universal suffrage was introduced,
when the right to vote was granted to all citizens, irrespective of whether or
not they paid taxes, whereas before only those people who paid taxes had the
right to vote. So, the position of the first speaker was made out to seem con-
