Toulmin 2 (I think I'm caught up)

One last thing about Toulmin.

How many of us do things because of principle. Not because we have arrived at that principle, but because we've always done it that way. When someone is stubbornly attached to an absolute principle, Toulmin says it results in the deadlock of the argument. Even if that person can back up what they believe, its because of the absolute principle, and the fact that they won't budge from it.

Thus, while some scholars view absolute principles as a ground or reference point, Toulmin says they are counterproductive. Focusing on the issue of abortion, Toulmin says the argument becomes unsolvable when everyone invovled focuses on universal laws and absolute principles. When you talk about abortion, everyone wants to get on "high theory."

Therefore, to me, Toulmin makes one of the most compelling statements and analogies that I have heard yet in this class. Toulmin refers to the tyranny of absolute principles. They reign absolutely over arguments. No matter what you have to say, these absolute principles result in one thing: deadlock. Thus, they have ultimate absolute control, forced tyranny.

PROPS to Toulmin, he coined it, he owns it, its a heck of a statement. Do we agree that absolute moral standards are a form of tyranny in arguments today? Do they result in the deadlock of discussion? Do they override all forms of rhetoric? Do they render arguments useless?