Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
Narrative vs. Logical Reasoning in Computer Ethics
by John M. Artz, Ph.D.
There is nothing like a clear, tight, well developed logical argument - context independent
and objectively verifiable to the extent that anyone with some basic instruction in logical
reasoning can verify the conclusions. And once we have an argument reduced to a formal
logical structure (the extreme, of course, being a mathematical representation) we feel as
though the issue is well understood. Logical reasoning provides us with an intellectually
economical means of making sense out of the world around us in a manner that can be
shared with other people and verified individually. It would be great if all of our vexing
problems could be reduced to logical arguments. We could simply articulate the
assumptions, follow the rules of logical reasoning, and adopt the conclusions.
Unfortunately, life is not that simple.
As much as we revere logical reasoning we also mistrust it. Characters from Thomas
Gradgrind in Charles Dickens’s Hard Times to Mr. Spock on Star Trek reveal our
instinctive mistrust of logic taken to an extreme. We know that there is more to reasoning
than pure logic, but most of us do not know what it is. From our own experience we know
that ethical issues often defy logical reasoning because the assumptions are based in
conflicting and inarticulable human values and desires. Death penalty, euthanasia, abortion,
right to die and cloning among many others, are ethical issues where logical reasoning has
gotten us nowhere. Issues in computer ethics, which seem tame by comparison have
similarly escaped the net of logical reasoning for similar reasons that will be discussed later.
If logic fails us in these important problems, where can we turn for help in working through
them ?
Both Gradgrind and Spock, while caricaturing the extremes of logical reasoning, represent a
different kind of argument - a narrative argument. They are believable characters, behaving
in a manner that is consist both with their own character representation and our experience
of how people behave. And they convince the reader of an important point. Dickens does
not come right out and say that Gradgrind is a lesser kind of person. He does not produce a
logical argument in which he claims that logic applied to every situation will miss important
things about life. Yet without a single articulated assumption or syllogism, Dicken’s makes
it quite clear to the reader that Gradgrind is not the kind of person that you want to be. And
he does it through the use of narrative reasoning.
Narrative vs. Logical Reasoning
Narrative and logical reasoning represent two distinct methods of making sense out of the
world around us. They are both legitimate and rigorous. Sometimes they provide alternative
Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
paths to truth and understanding. Sometimes one or the other provides the only path. This
dichotomy is described by Bruner:
“There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought, each
providing distinct ways ordering experience, of constructing reality. … A
good story and a well-formed argument are different natural kinds. Both can
used as a means for convincing another. Yet what they convince of is
fundamentally different: arguments convince one of their truth, stories of
their lifelikeness.” [pg. 11]
Traditionally truth is a correspondence between what one believes and what is actually the
case in the physical world. But literary truth is a correspondence between how characters
behave in a story and how they would behave in similar circumstances in real life. Hence
the ‘lifelikenss’ of stories is different kind of truth - truth about human nature.
Robinson and Hawpe elaborate on this dichotomy further by distinguishing between
scientific (propositional) thinking and narrative thinking:
“In both, the goal is the establishment of cause and effect relations between
factors. Both are attempts to organize and give meaning to human
experience, to explain and guide problem solving. But the products of these
two modes of thought, story and principle respectively, are quite distinct.
The product of scientific theorizing is a principle, or law. These principles
are general, context-free, usually abstract, and testable only by further formal
scientific activity. The product of narrative thought, story, is context-bound,
concrete, and testable though ordinary interpersonal checking.” [p. 114]
They go on to say,
“Perhaps the most radical difference between scientific and narrative
thinking is in cast of mind: the scientist strives to eliminate ambiguity and
uncertainty and is uncomfortable when there are two equally credible
theoretical accounts of some phenomenon. In contrast, in our everyday
reasoning about social reality we live comfortably with apparent
contradictions. We want explanations which are convincing enough to be
accepted as true, but recognize that there could be alternative accounts
which tell a different but equally persuasive story.” [p. 115]
Logical reasoning is general, context independent, objective and leads to a single
conclusion. Narrative reasoning is specific, context dependent, open to subjective
interpretation, and potentially leads to multiple conclusions. The characteristics of narrative
reasoning are considered flaws when applied to logical reasoning. But the reverse applies
also. A story that has only one interpretation and means the same to everyone isn’t much of
Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
a story. The point of generality, however, is a little confusing. Great literature is great
because of its timelessness. But timelessness and generality are not the same. The situation
described in a good story tends to resonate with a ring of truth with readers perhaps
centuries later. Yet, while the sequence of events may be very common to many people, the
situation itself is usually very specific.
While narrative and logical reasoning are different kinds of reasoning, different ways to
organize our experiences and make sense out of the world, they are not mutually exclusive.
A good narrative is also often quite logical in structure, and a good logical argument can
often be better understood with a good narrative example. Narrative reasoning can also be
inductive or deductive. It is inductive when it provides us with experiences that we use to
formulate our opinions about life. It is deductive when it establishes a model of behavior
that we wish to follow. Thus, logical and narrative reasoning are not either/or approaches to
reasoning. They are complimentary alternative modes of thinking that provide different
paths to truth and understanding.
Rigor in Narrative Reasoning
A concern, some may have, about narrative reasoning is that it may not be as rigorous as
logical reasoning. After all, syllogisms are syllogisms, and stories are stories. However,
much of this concern results not from a lack of rigor in narrative reasoning, but from the
lack of documentation and refinement of the rules of narrative reasoning. Logical reasoning
was not rigorous until Aristotle began codifying it. George Boole took it further in his
classic book on logic “An investigation of the laws of thought”. Each of these efforts were
attempts to make logical reasoning more rigorous, which is to say that logical reasoning is
not inherently any more rigorous than narrative reasoning. Today, we refine our reasoning
abilities by studying logical fallacies and logical reasoning under the popular heading of
critical thinking. It is interesting to note that Boole believed that he was actually codifying
the ‘laws of thought’. Subsequent research in the psychology of deductive reasoning shows
that people are not inherently logical: logical rigor is learned. Similarly, narrative rigor can
also be refined and learned.
Narrative reasoning has similar rules which are being articulated today under the name of
narratology. [Bal] Narratives must follow specific structural rules. They must have a plot,
believable characters and a meaningful setting. There must be a coherent temporal sequence
told from a consistent point of view. And the temporal sequence must embody some sort of
causality. The often quoted E.M. Forster offers the following observation:
“A plot is a also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. ‘The
king died and then the queen died’ is a story. ‘The king died , and then the
queen died of grief’ is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense
of causality overshadows it.” [pg. 86]
Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
In fact, if someone were to tell the story - ‘Bill won the lottery and Bob filled his car up with
gas.’ - the listener would automatically wonder what the connection was between Bill and
Bob. If the storyteller were to say that there is no connection, the listener would dismiss the
story instantly as being silly. Thus, stories, if they are to be believable, if they are to
convince us of their ‘lifelikeness’ must follow the rules of narrative.
Genre fiction is yet even more tightly constructed with rules that define the genre. In
Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton used the science fiction genre to explore ethical issues in
biotechnology. Science fiction allows the use of technologies that have not been invented or
developed, yet the genre still requires that they be believable extrapolations of today’s
technology. In order to make the premise plausible, Crichton, following the rules of
narrative and genre, had to create a believable explanation for how dinosaurs were brought
back to life. The idea of extracting dinosaur DNA from the blood in mosquitoes that were
trapped in amber may or may not be scientifically feasible, but it is plausible enough to meet
the structural requirements of the genre and the expectations of the readers. Instead of using
a narrative approach, Crichton could have just stated the logical proposition - If you tinker
around with complex living systems without taking the time to fully understand them, you
might create problems that you cannot control. But that would have been much less
convincing than the book.
The most tightly constructed narrative is the short story. “Everything must work with
everything else. Everything enhances everything else, interrelates with everything else, is
inseparable from everything else – and all this is done with a necessary and perfect
economy.” [Hills, pg. 4] Which is to say that the ‘ideal’ short story can be thought of as the
quintessential tightly constructed narrative argument. From a pedagogical perspective, short
stories provide great promise. They take less time to read and have fewer distractions than
novels. Short stories can be used, in the classroom, to rigorously explore specific ethical
issues in computer ethics with a much greater richness than is possible through purely
analytical arguments. But alas there are all too few short stories available.
Certainly stories can be used to mislead, but so can logical arguments. The many book
published on critical thinking and logical fallacies are a testament to vagaries of logical
reasoning. There are fallacies in narrative reasoning as well, only they have not been
identified and named with the same diligence as logical reasoning fallacies have been. Yet,
at bottom, a logical argument must ‘make sense’ and so must a narrative argument. If a
story is not believable then the characters are not acting in a way that we believe people
would behave based on our own experiences.
The Use of Narratives in Computer Ethics
Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
To some extent, logical and narrative reasoning address different domains. Logic is well
suited to mechanistic processes that can be reduced to logical description. Logic is good for
articulating general principles and deductive reasons. Logic is useful for describing and
explaining. While logic is good for describing was is, narrative is good for exploring what
could be and figuring out what should be. Narratives are a useful means for understanding
the complex and ambiguous issues in human affairs. They allow us to explore possibilities
and experience situations vicariously. Narrative reasoning is particularly well suited to
computer ethics because many issues are not well understood and the goal of computer
ethics is not to discover truth about the physical world, but truth about human nature.
and provide yet another kind of truth.
Telling the truth in fiction can mean one of three things: saying that which is
factually correct, a trivial kind of truth, though a kind central to works of
verisimilitude; saying that which, by virtue of tone and coherence, does not
feel like lying, a more important kind of truth; and discovering and affirming
moral truth about human existence – the highest truth of the art. [Gardner, p.
129]
“Discovering and affirming moral truth about human existence.” Narrative fiction gives us a
means to explore and discover truths about what could be and what should be. Through
narratives we can explore possible consequences of technology, construct alternative worlds
and select the one in which we would like to live.
Progress in computer ethics is constrained by two serious problems that also plague many of
the other ethical issues that we face today such as those mentioned earlier. The first problem
is that we do not know all the possible consequences of these issues. Most speculations lean
toward the darkest possibilities but few explore the subtleties of what is really likely to
happen. Stories, like Jurassic Park allow us to look at possible outcomes, but there are too
few of these stories to allow us to make balanced decisions. The second problem is that we
do not know what the possibilities are in terms of ethical stands. Again narratives allow us
to create worlds that do not exist, step into them, explore, and determine if they are the kind
of world in which you would like to live.
Critics of the use of narrative in ethics point out that after exploring narratives you always
have to come back to principles. Ethics, they argue, is too messy without principles and
discussion of narratives does not lead to conclusions. This view misses the point of
narratives. First principles are developed by extracting the principles from experience.
Narratives provide some of these experiences vicariously. Hence, narratives can be used in
the development of principles. Second, it is often unclear which principles apply in given
situations. Narrative explorations provide insight into situations allowing us to determine
the governing principles. And narratives can be used to explore the consequences of
principled decisions to determine if the outcomes are indeed what is intended. Finally,
Copyright 1998 Dr. John M. Artz
narrative reasoning does lead to conclusions - very specific conclusions about very specific
situations. Narrative reasoning is lacking in generally, as was mentioned before, not lacking
in conclusions.
The relationship between principled and narrative ethics is similar to the relationship
between theoretical and empirical science. Theories need data for validation. In turn,
theories are need to make sense out of data. It does not make sense to ask whether theory
construction or data collection is more important. It only makes sense to ask which is
appropriate at a given point in an investigation. Similarly, it does not make sense to ask
whether principled logical reasoning or narrative reasoning is more appropriate for
understanding ethical situations. It only makes sense to ask which is appropriate at the
current point in the investigation. Since principled reasoning breaks down in situations
where outcomes cannot be know and values have not been determined, now is a good time
to look to narrative reasoning to advance the state of computer ethics.
Bibliography
Bal, M. (1997) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. University of Toronto
Press.
Bruner, J. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Forester, E.M. (1927) Aspects of the Novel. Harcourt Brace & Company.
Gardner, J. (1991) The Art of Fiction. New York: Vintage Books.
Hill, R. (1987) Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular. Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Robinson, J.A. & Hawpe, L. (1986) Narrative thinking as a heuristic process. In T.R. Sarbin
(Ed.) Narrative Psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. (pp. 111-125). New
York: Praeger.