As a society we are failing to ask the right questions and the problem stems from people that do not want you to know the right questions to ask because their power lies in your confusion and ignorance. The key to asking a good question is to understand the topic completely and then get past all of the rhetoric and form a question that has a yes or no answer. Some small examples of asking the wrong questions:
1. Should Abortion be illegal? Sounds like a reasonable question right? Wrong. There is just too much baggage that comes with this question to be useful. The key questions that have to be asked are: Are we discussing the topic in reference to the laws of man (government) or the laws of God? If it is the law of God we’re discussing, go to church and have at it and live your OWN life by the values that your church tells you are right. If we’re discussing the laws of man. I.e. those that the government has control over then we have a different discussion. Next logical question you would then want to ask is “does the government have the right to legislate abortion?” This again is a loaded question that is not specific enough. The question becomes at what point can the government consider it murder? The answer that must follow is: When the child is alive. The logical and very simple question is “when is the child alive for the purposes of government?” And the answer is quite simply When the child can live without heroic measures by doctors outside the mother’s body. Of course then you’ll get the religious zealots that would claim that you couldn’t do that because then anyone on a respirator would not be termed “alive”. Except that that is an entirely different question. The question in that case is “when is a person no longer alive?” Which again, has a very simple “law of man” answer being “when there is no higher brain function.” Now the answers come from understandings of the term “living” and “not alive” and presume that the concept of putting what is, before what might be is a given. (i.e. the mother is a live and her rights trump a child’s rights that might be given if and only if the child was ever brought to term and became “alive” by the above definition. This is why the question of abortion must have a single exception and that is “unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy”, and at that point it is the mother that must choose to terminate the pregnancy or not, and no one else can be involved (other than power of attorneys etc.) So quite simply by asking the wrong question we have a hugely divisive topic that makes everyone upset. By boiling the issue down to it’s core we have a consistent and easy to apply position that addresses the concerns of everyone (even the religious nuts if they value the concept of separation of church and state). The question that should be asked is simply “At what point in the realm of the law of man does a foetus become alive?” and the corollary of “Is there any case where this is trumped?”
2. Is Gay marriage moral? Again, the wrong question. The question is actually incredibly simple: Does the government have any business being in the business of marrying people?” The answer is quite simply No. The government has no business being involved in a religious ceremony, or more specifically trying to encourage people to marry based on some religious view that it’s better to be married and thus give tax incentives etc. to those that are married over those that are not. However, even if you were to disagree and say that government should be marrying people (even though people could easily enter into a contract for which the government would rule upon for any dispute) then the question is simply “does the government have the right to pick and choose who it can marry and who it can’t?” Again, the answer is no because that’s exactly the same thing as telling a black woman that she must give up her seat on a bus for a white woman. Only those that want to have a Christian state would be in favour of this and where does it end? Thus the question is simple and the answer is consistent.
3. Another that comes to mind is “how much money should we be giving to the earthquake victims?” The question isn’t how much, it’s should the government be taking money from its citizens without permission and giving it to others? To rephrase, “Should the government steal money from its citizens and give it to others?” Of course theft is theft no matter who it is done by, and thus is immoral and the answer becomes simply “no”. Obviously the matter is a private one where each and every person can donate or not according to their own conscience. Charity is not charity if it’s forced upon you. But you wouldn’t see that until the question is correctly asked.
I’m sure you can go through so much of your life and look at the questions that are being asked and realize that they’re the wrong questions. There are just so many of them. The key is that the questioner is the one in control. It is the questioner that terms the boundaries of the conversation, not the person answering the questions. And the very best politicians know this, and it’s why the work so very hard to control the questions because the answers are largely irrelevant and predicable. The next time someone asks you what you think about something, analyse the question and see if there is a better question to ask. You’ll be surprised how clear any issue becomes if the right question is asked.