The Instigator
ShabShoral
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Ideological Diversity is not a Virtue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/14/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 91069
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

ShabShoral

Pro

Standard rules.

First round for acceptance.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge.

I look forward to an interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
ShabShoral

Pro


My case relies on two premisses:



1.) Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct.



2.) An ideology which is incorrect cannot have moral worth and should not be valued.


_____________________________________________________________________________________


1.) Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct.


_____________________________________________________________________________________


Proposition One:


Either:


A.) Ideology, in general, is able to be analysed morally.


Or:


B.) Ideology, in general, is non-moral.


Proposition Two:


A.) must be assumed.


Demonstration:


If B.), one could not make the claim that ideological diversity is a virtue, thus defeating any possible arguments against the resolution. A.), then, must be assumed.


Impact: If A.), the moral analysis I will give is both applicable and warranted, and, if all follows, my case will have been proven.


Proposition Three:


Ideology must be analysed logically.


Demonstration:


In assuming A.), a further assumption is made: that ideology has a cognitive meaning (else analysis would be impossible). Ideology must then be reducible to logical propositions to have cognitive meaning, for, as Wittgenstein reminds us, “The logical picture of the facts is the thought” [1].


This means that it must be assumed that any analysis of ideology must be done on propositions of ideology. “Ideology X is correct” is such an analysable proposition.


Proposition Four:


If multiple ideologies are to exist, they must have points of disagreement.


Demonstration:


“To suppose two things indiscernible, is to suppose the same thing under two names” [2])


Proposition Five:


Two contradictory propositions cannot both be correct.


Demonstration:


(P) and (~P) is axiomatically invalid; (P) or (~P) is axiomatically valid.


Proposition Six:


Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct.


Demonstration:


Ideologies must be reducible to propositional form for our purposes, and this consists in constructing propositions of the form “Ideology X is correct”, “Ideology Y is correct”, etc. [Prop. 3].


If “Ideology X is correct” and “Ideology Y is correct” must contradict each other at some point [Prop. 4], then only one can be correct [Prop. 5]. This can be applied to all pairings of ideologies within a given system to show that only one, at most, may be correct (even if none are due to an incomplete set of ideologies).


Q. E. D.


__________________________________________________________________________________


2.) An ideology which is incorrect cannot have moral worth and should not be valued.


__________________________________________________________________________________


To have moral worth, a thing must be conducive to goodness. Since morality is applicable only to moral agents, and moral agency implies action as an extension of the moral agents, moral worth is tied to actions and their causes.


For an ideology to be incorrect, it must not fulfill its function qua ideology. Since ideologies are worldviews, an incorrect ideology is a faulty worldview.


If a moral agent seeks to hold an ideology, they are expressing that that ideology is a value to them, and, thus, that they perceive it as furthering the good.


Moral agents do not seek to hold faulty worldviews, for any act, including seeking worldviews, relies on the presupposition that one’s worldview is not faulty, and thus such an undercutting of fundamentals is impossible.


If an ideology is established as faulty, it fails as an ideology; it would then not be pursued or valued.


When multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct.


If ideological diversity is virtuous (conducive to value), it follows that faulty ideologies are virtuous, which is absurd, as established.


Therefore, ideological diversity is not a virtue.



_____________________________________________________________________________________


[1] Wittgenstein, “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”


[2] Leibniz, Letter to Clarke


Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

My opponent's case is as follows:

1. Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct
2. An ideology which is incorrect cannot have moral worth and should not be valued


In response to these contentions, I will be presenting the following refutations:

1. Pro's case relies on both singular objective truth and morality, both of which he must prove exist
2. Even if singular objective truth and morality exist, diversity is still a virtue to be valued


First, I contend that two different ideologies may both be correct simultaneously.

Only one of these has to be true in order for Pro's first premise to be invalid.

1A. A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself and yet might be true, or wrong at the same time [1].

1B. Differences in ideology may appear to be opposite, when in fact they might be complimentary. For example, the philosophical proposition of Determinism posits that all of our actions and choices are inevitable [2]. On the other hand, Free Will suggests that humans have the capacity to make choices that are not inevitable [3]. Compatibilism is the belief that Free Will and Determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent [4]. Compatabilism is widely accepted by many great thinkers in Philosophy. Some contradictions are the result of dualistic thinking that create apparent conflicts, whereas thinking about something in a non-dualistic manner allows for alternative possibilities and realities.

1C. Differences in stated ideology might be a matter of perspective, that is a different way of observing the same truth or reality. It could be mere equivocation or a matter of degree. For example, if I said "Joe is here" when Joe's car pulled up to the house, you might say "Joe is not here" yet neither one of us would be definitively right or wrong. I would be correct if here was understood as being on or close to the premises, whereas you would be correct if here was assumed to be in one's presence. Therefore, multiple ideologies (stated perspectives) might simultaneously be correct without contradiction, depending on the perspective of the observer making the statement.

1D. Morality cannot be observed in nature. It is a man-made concept that is perceived based on one's nature and nurture. One's genetics and experiences (culture) dictate their preferences and moral point of view.

Kant argued that one's motives dictate moral righteousness; in other words a singular moral standard cannot exist. For instance, suppose Pro argues that lying is definitively immoral because it deceives people unjustly. Now suppose it is 1940 Poland and Nazi officers ask a Jewish person to identify their religion. If the Jewish person told the truth, they would be killed by the Nazi officer. Would lying in that instance be definitively immoral? Many similar analogies exist.

But suppose Pro wants to argue that Kant's value of motive dictating righteousness in and of itself presents an objective standard of morality. That is problematic because it does not answer the is-ought problem in moral philosophy; that is it does not answer how one ought to behave [5].

For instance suppose one's motive is upholding the right to life and personhood. Now suppose I have to choose which side of the abortion debate to be on. People with opposite ideologies (pro-choice vs. pro-life) might disagree on the proper position, while both simultaneously claim to value the right to life. The pro-choice camp does not believe the fetus has the right to life, whereas the pro-life group does. Therefore both groups with opposite ideology can both uphold the correct motive (assuming that motive is correct) and still simply view the situation differently. One group believes a fetus qualifies as a person because it is human; the other group does not believe a human fetus has enough sentience to have the right to life. Again the value is the same even if the ideology is different.

Now consider the pro-life camp favoring war in the Middle East. Is that consistent with their pro "life" morality? What about if they also support the death penalty? What about if they spend their money on luxuries, instead of donating it to those in need and saving other people's lives? Is their alleged value of the right to life somehow negated because it is not 100% consistent?

In short, morality is subjective and/or a matter of perspective.


2. Regarding knowledge, it is often said the journey is more important than the destination.

Some logical paradoxes are known to be invalid, but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking. Research shows that students benefit from the challenge of trying to solve the riddles and puzzles presented by paradoxes [6] which has been specifically useful in math and science [7]. In other words, even if one singular truth exists, there is still merit in the journey of trying to find the answer. Ergo there is still value in the diversity of opinion; there is an inherent value in the discussion, exploration and acquired knowledge, practice and experience gained by challenging different ideas and considering various outcomes - as opposed to simply being told what the right answer is.

Furthermore, what is right at any given time might change. For instance something that is the best option in one scenario might not be the best option in another, thus it is all the more reason to value diversity and different approaches and outcomes to different problems. That way people are more informed and prepared on the best way to handle various situations regardless of circumstance.


Debate Round No. 2
ShabShoral

Pro

1.) Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct.

1A. Paradoxes are not true or false in the sense that normal propositions are; where they exist, they show the inabilities of a logical system. No paradox exists unless one already accepts the logical system the paradox exists within, meaning that

1B. If compatibilism is correct and distinguishable from both determinism and libertarian free will, then it must be the case that there is something in compatibilism which is both a) correct and b) not in either of the other theories, and, if compatibilism is merely a container of determinism and free will, there can be no “diversity”, for positing compatibilism is the same as positing the “other” theories.

In either case, compatibilism would still be the only optimal theory, leaving diversity with no place.


1C. In the example my opponent gives, there is still either a contradixion between the two ideologies or there is, in fact, only one ideology.

Using my opponent’s phrasing/definitions, say that person A claims that “Joe is here”, while person B claims that “Joe is not here”. Substituting definitions, A claims “Joe is on or close to the premises”, while B claims “Joe is not in my presence”.

Either each party accepts their own claim and the other’s claim, in which case they would have exactly the same ideologies (in this context), or one or more of the claims is rejected (or, at least, not accepted) by one or more of the parties. This would require at least one false belief in an ideology.

For example, if A rejects B’s true claim as false, A has a faulty ideology. Even if A just doesn’t take a stance regarding the truth value of B’s true claim, A is still making a claim - that “B’s claim should neither be judged true or false” – which is itself false, for it is clear that B’s claim, having a truth-value, must be judged for the ideology to be complete, or at least aim at completeness.



1D.

“Now suppose it is 1940 Poland and Nazi officers ask a Jewish person to identify their religion. If the Jewish person told the truth, they would be killed by the Nazi officer. Would lying in that instance be definitively immoral?”

Note: I am not espousing nor rejecting Kantianism directly. While the above lines may have emotional and rhetorical impact, I fail to see its relevance. If logic dictates that one must answer yes, the bullet must be bitten, regardless of how uncomfortable that would be. Therefore, if objective morality exists (further support will be given for this), it must be taken as primary over all intuitions.


“But suppose Pro wants to argue that Kant's value of motive dictating righteousness in and of itself presents an objective standard of morality. That is problematic because it does not answer the is-ought problem in moral philosophy; that is it does not answer how one ought to behave.”

The is/ought problem ceases to be a problem when a goal has already been specified. Hypothetical imperatives may constitute a moral system if the “then” portion of the “if, then” statement is specified. For instance, assume that it is a moral goal to be in New York. To decide what you should actually do (the normative part of the moral system), simply find what would fit the “x” in “if x, then you will be in New York”.

Kant did recognize that hypothetical imperatives only hold water if the goal is set (hence the “hypothetical”). All that must be done to pass by the is/ought problem is to show that a certain goal must be accepted by any moral agent within the context. I have done this at the end of my first round:

“If a moral agent seeks to hold an ideology, they are expressing that that ideology is a value to them, and, thus, that they perceive it as furthering the good.

Moral agents do not seek to hold faulty worldviews, for any act, including seeking worldviews, relies on the presupposition that one’s worldview is not faulty, and thus such an undercutting of fundamentals is impossible.“


Again, I am not arguing from a Kantian basis. I have only given a metaethical framework which states that all ethical systems must have certain premisses built-in to be self-consistent; this is enough to prove my case. Discussions on motives are thus not relevant, as I have shown that all moral action must be delimited by objective rules.


2.) An ideology which is incorrect cannot have moral worth and should not be valued.

My opponent proposes that diversity of opinion leads to better critical thinking skills, reasoning, etc., by way of allowing people to engage (and refute) wrong ideas, ergo such diversity is a virtue. However, this is exactly the point: one must try to get away from all wrong worldviews and move towards the singular ideal. If it were not the case that the ideal ideology should be aimed towards, the benefits my opponent cites have no impact (since critical thinking would be useless), and if the above is the case, then diversity is admitted to not be a value. When one analyses a faulty argument, no value is gained from the argument; the value is gained from eliminating the argument’s influence as best you can and replacing it with one which is coherent. The value is in the negation of diversity, not its existence.

Contextuality

Something being right in one scenario and wrong in another poses no problem to objectivity; they would be independent judgements. A proper ideology, shown in 1C., would deal with this.

Conclusion

Would we not think bad of a world wherein every ideology was accepted equally? Surely despicable and nonsensical ideologies being placed alongside moral and rational ones is indefensible. And if it is so that there can only be one ideology of the latter sort, then the existence of any other should provoke the same reaction as the original hypothetical did.

Danielle

Con


1A. Pro claims that paradoxes are not true or false in the sense that normal propositions are; where they exist, they show the inabilities of a logical system. Indeed there are logical systems where "true contradictions" exist. For example, Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true.

My opponent's syllogism from R1 utilizes formal logic. Contradictions are problematic in this system. "Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem" [1].

Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes. According to Dialetheists, some statements are not derived from logic, but are instead descriptions of experience. The assertion "there are no absolutes" appears to be a contradictory statement, however, that is only the case if we use classical logic. Since many paradoxes exist in formal logic, we have no reason to accept this standard as the singular, definitive, absolutely correct form of logic since Pro admits it is problematic, i.e. paradoxes.

Therefore Pro's 5th premise that two contradictory propositions cannot both be correct is not definitively true. Indeed it's possible they are, and nondualism is another philosophy that accepts this supposition [2].

1B. Pro states that (assuming Compatabilism is correct) valuing Compatibilism would be the only optimal theory, leaving diversity with no place. However if the theory of Compatibilism was derived from combining aspects of Free Will and Determinism, then valuing the diversity between Free Will and Determinism is specifically what will have led to the realization of Compatibilism in the first place. If we accepted one ideology as definitively correct while dismissing the other, we may not have reached a conclusion that marries aspects of the two. Accepting that both ideologies make valid points allows the opportunity to expand one's perspective. More about this in Point #2.

1C. I'm dropping this contention. I don't have much time left to post this round, and it's hardly the strongest point against the resolution.

1D. Pro has not proven that objective morality exists. He's written, "If a moral agent seeks to hold an ideology, they are expressing that the ideology is a value to them, and thus, that they perceive it as furthering the good." However just because an ideology holds value to an individual doesn't mean that it is in fact true or good, therefore diversity has merit. It allows the individual/group to assess various propositions.

"As a product of blind Darwinian evolution, our morals will have developed solely from the pragmatic consideration of what works - what enables us to benefit from cooperation and thus leave more descendants. For interacting with another human, what matters is not what is 'objectively' moral (whatever that means), but what that human considers to be moral" [3].

Pro writes that moral agents do not seek to hold faulty world views; they believe that one’s worldview is not faulty, so an undercutting of fundamentals is impossible. In other words it would be illogical for one to hold two different positions simultaneously. Ignoring the fact that I've explained this is not necessarily the case (1A, 1B) #1 an individual can weigh the values of an ideology differently, and #2 the resolution is not necessarily referring to one specific individual.

Pro claims "The is/ought problem ceases to be a problem when a goal has already been specified." Suppose one's goal is to pass the Bar exam. They could cheat and risk getting caught, or they can try passing on their own and risk failure. The goal is specified and yet what one ought to do is still a concern. The Non-Aggression Principle is a moral value system, and yet it does not answer the is/ought problem even when the goal is clearly stated: non-aggression.

If there was an absolute moral standard, something could be immoral even if every human on the planet disagreed. But if people's feelings and desires are what ultimately count because they "perceive" it as furthering the good, then that is a subjective morality. It doesn't mean that they are actually furthering the good, assuming an objective standard for goodness could even be determined.

2. This is the crux of my argument. Contrary to Pro's claim, incorrect ideologies (assuming they are objectively incorrect) can still have value - just less value. I've explained that there is still value in the diversity of opinion; there is an inherent value in the discussion, exploration and acquired knowledge, practice and experience gained by challenging different ideas and considering various outcomes.

Pro writes, "One must try to get away from all wrong world views and move towards the singular ideal. If it were not the case that the ideal ideology should be aimed towards, the benefits my opponent cites have no impact (since critical thinking would be useless)." My opponent makes the mistake of assuming a definitively true, objective goal exists. However the sciences for example are constantly evolving. We don't even know what our goals are or what advancements to expect in the near or distant future.

As such, the benefits of critical thinking cannot be overlooked. Science relies on creativity, exploration, innovation and new ideas (testing hypothesis) -- all of which can be nurtured through trial and error. And while Pro says that working toward a singular truth is the goal of this trial and error, he #1 supposes singular truths exist and #2 assumes that everyone has the same values. This is a grave error.

Pro claims that the utility of critical thinking is derived from the search for truth or a singular righteous standard. But let's use this debate as an example. Pro's goal and value might be to establish truth, whereas my goal and value might be to pass time, sharpen my debate skills or have fun. The fact that Pro and I might disagree ideologically (as we are doing now in this debate) still has value, because it allows me to accomplish all 3 of those goals.

My opponent writes, "When one analyses a faulty argument, no value is gained from the argument; the value is gained from eliminating the argument’s influence as best you can and replacing it with one which is coherent. The value is in the negation of diversity, not its existence." However this is a nonsensical statement. In order for there to be value in negating diversity (value that Pro accepts does exist) then diversity needs to be present in the first place. Otherwise there is no scrutiny, no analysis and no gain at all.

When we disagree with people, we are prompted to work harder. Diversity jolts us into cognitive action in ways that homogeneity simply does not [4].

Contextuality and Conclusion

Pro states, "Something being right in one scenario and wrong in another poses no problem to objectivity; they would be independent judgements." This is a straw man. I did not argue that something being right in one scenario and wrong in another eliminates objectivity. What I said was that since what is "right" in a given scenario can change (something that Pro accepts), it's all the more reason to value diversity and different approaches and outcomes to different problems. That way people are more informed and prepared on the best way to handle various situations regardless of circumstance.

Pro concludes, "Would we not think bad of a world wherein every ideology was accepted equally? Surely despicable and nonsensical ideologies being placed alongside moral and rational ones is indefensible." This is another straw man. I never said that every ideology ought to be accepted equally; I've said ideological diversity is a virtue.


[1] "Transfinite Numbers in Paraconsistent Set Theory."Review of Symbolic Logic 3. 2010. pp. 71-92.
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] https://coelsblog.wordpress.com...
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Debate Round No. 3
ShabShoral

Pro


1A. The Principle of Explosion shows the absurdity of rejecting the Law of Noncontradixion, at least in this debate.

Assume P and Not-P, a contradixion.
P – given.

Not-P – given

P or “Voters should vote for ShabShoral” – disjunction introduction

Not-P

Therefore, “Voters should vote for ShabShoral.”

Any conclusion can be reached through this method if one admits contradixions.

Even disregarding this objection, if contradixions may exist, it is perfectly proper for me to claim that I deserve to win this debate, even if my opponent claims otherwise; I would only have to appeal to the fact that both a proposition and its negation may be true.



1B. There is nothing of value in either free will or determinism, separately, that is not in compatibilism (given my opponent’s scenario). The point is that to advocate free will or determinism separately, one must therefore advocate falsehoods (those parts of the theories which compatibilism excises), or de facto advocate compatibilism (which would mean that there is nothing full-stop in either which is not in compatibilism, making them… compatibilism).

My opponent then says that “If we accepted one ideology as definitively correct while dismissing the other, we may not have reached a conclusion that marries aspects of the two.” This is totally irrelevant; if the correct conclusion is reached, then the diversity holds no value. My opponent is arguing on the basis that someone chooses the “One Ideology” wrongly; I am arguing for the superiority of the One Ideology whether it is found or not.


1D

“Just because an ideology holds value to an individual doesn't mean that it is in fact true or good”

I made no claim to the contrary.

“Therefore diversity has merit. It allows the individual/group to assess various propositions.”

This does not follow. If one is right, diversity only means that others must be wrong.

My argument shows the preconditions for holding any ideology, and these preconditions exclude the judgement that pursuing a faulty ideology is good. I must reiterate that this is a metaethical truth: even if everyone on Earth is immoral by whatever standard, they cannot contradict the limits of morality in itself.

I have shown that “Ideological diversity is a virtue” is equivalent to saying that “Faulty ideologies are desirable to hold”, and that this cannot truthfully be held by any if they know what it means. Someone may mistakenly advocate what this means in practice without formulating it in this way, and thus think that they are not contradicting themselves, but this only means that they have not made the proposition “Ideological diversity is a virtue” explicit (and thus my opponent is excluded from this category).

It simply makes no sense to negate the resolution, and this senselessness transcends all particular moral systems.

“#1 an individual can weigh the values of an ideology differently”

See my refutation of 1C.

“#2 the resolution is not necessarily referring to one specific individual.

Sure, but to negate it requires a specific proposition set forth by a specific individual who adheres to the a priori rules of action I have laid out.

“Suppose one's goal is to pass the Bar exam. They could cheat and risk getting caught, or they can try passing on their own and risk failure. The goal is specified and yet what one ought to do is still a concern.”
One would do that which leads to a state in which the exam is passed. Pragmatism is fully appropriate here.

Regardless, my case, again, transcends all particular moral systems. It governs all. It has no need to prescribe anything, just limit systems. I fail to see how this affects my case.


2.

I am only assuming that there is a goal, and, therefore, an ideology best fitted to actualise it. My opponent is arguing on purely pragmatic grounds, but I have not presented pragmatic arguments. My arguments are aimed at proving that One Ideology which is correct must stand alone, and must be strived towards at all points. The question of how to get to it is not ethical in nature, and the means are not “inherently valuable,” as my opponent claims: they are purely instrumental. And they are instrumental with an end in sight. That end is the negation of the means; the means are to be discarded and negated on the path to the One Ideology. Therefore, the resolution stands.

“Pro's goal and value might be to establish truth, whereas my goal and value might be to pass time, sharpen my debate skills or have fun. The fact that Pro and I might disagree ideologically (as we are doing now in this debate) still has value, because it allows me to accomplish all 3 of those goals.

In this example, it is not ideological diversity that provides value. It is the argumentation. It is clear that my opponent cannot know whether I am playing devil’s advocate or being sincere – it doesn’t matter. Thus, my actual ideology doesn’t matter, and therefore value must be determined by something outside of my ideology and whether or not it’s different than my opponent’s.

“In order for there to be value in negating diversity (value that Pro accepts does exist) then diversity needs to be present in the first place. Otherwise there is no scrutiny, no analysis and no gain at all.

Say that a plague renders millions on the brink of death. A cure is found and distributed, able to heal most who haven’t already passed. The curing of the disease is beneficial, but it is not the case that the disease itself deserves kudos for requiring it. Battling the disease is done to destroy the disease and enter a state where the disease is no more. The virtue is found in this eradication, not in the disease itself.

Contextuality and Conclusion

The argument my opponent accuses of attacking a strawman is presented here as a strawman itself. Her objection was implicitly dealt with already – if what is right changes, the scenario itself changes. The rightness is part of the concept of “scenario” I was using. My argument is unaffected.

To advocate diversity for diversity’s sake is to elevate quantity without regard for any other quality. This is what I cannot accept.

Many thanks to my opponent. I enjoyed this very much.

Danielle

Con

I'd like to once again thank my opponent for a great debate.

1A. In the last round I explained that contradicting values are not necessarily impossible. I've shown how Pro's standard of classical logic is not perfect; indeed paradoxes exist which show a flaw in his logic, which he has not challenged. In Philosophy 101 you learn logic; in Philosophy 201 you learn to throw out everything you learned about formal logic, because it's not necessarily the best, most perfect standard. I've exemplified two other branches of logic that make holding seemingly opposite ideals valid, including Non-dualism and Dialetheism which Pro has not contested. Instead he simply insists that we should accept the law of non-contradiction per classic logic standards, which is invalidated by my two other proposals (which he dropped) and my noting how classic logic is not necessarily perfect or complete.

1B. I noted, “If we accepted one ideology [free will and determinism] as definitively correct while dismissing the other, we may not have reached a conclusion that marries aspects of the two.” Pro says this is totally irrelevant; if the correct conclusion is reached, then the diversity holds no value. However he has not actually addressed my argument at all. He said if the conclusion is reached, the diversity holds no value... but he never denied that the diversity helped reach the conclusion, meaning there was/is value in diversity even if it is not always equal value or value that is held forever.

1D. In the round before this, Pro claimed "If a moral agent seeks to hold an ideology, they are expressing that the ideology is a value to them, and thus, that they perceive it as furthering the good." I responded that just because an ideology holds value to an individual, doesn't mean that it is in fact true or good, therefore diversity has merit. Pro says he made no claim to the contrary; however, highlighting that a moral agent seeks to further the good only means they are looking to further their own good or their perception of what is good. And in response, my point was that exposure to different ideas was useful whereas suggesting a singular idea was correct might inhibit change or progression.

Pro continues, " If one is right, diversity only means that others must be wrong."

I've explained why this logic is completely flawed. Here's another example:

Suppose I am a very regimented person who believes in strict focus and discipline in order to accomplish tasks at work. My ideology is to be very diligent and organized about scheduled breaks and a rigid timeline for checking off assignments. Now suppose my coworker had a completely different style and method of working. He might be more fluid, find it important to take longer breaks in order to be equally or more productive (and on his own timeline) while preferring to tackle his assignments in a different manner. If we both accomplish the same goals, but have different work ideologies, why is one of us definitively wrong? Pro has not explained.

Pro writes, "I have shown that 'Ideological diversity is a virtue' is equivalent to saying that 'Faulty ideologies are desirable to hold' but this is not true. I've argued that there need not necessarily be a "false" ideology in diversity. Diversity might simply mean different, and maybe even contrary, but not necessarily in opposition to the same goals, i.e. my last coworker example.

I pointed out that the resolution is not necessarily referring to a single person. Pro responded, "Sure, but to negate it requires a specific proposition set forth by a specific individual who adheres to the a priori rules of action I have laid out." However I've explained how various things rely on diversity of opinion in order to improve the greater good.

"If left unchecked, an academic field can become a cohesive moral community, creating a shared reality that subsequently blinds its members to morally or ideologically undesirable hypotheses and unanswered but important scientific questions... Since the enlightenment, scientists have thought of themselves as spreading light and pushing back the darkness. The metaphor is apt, but in a politically homogeneous field, a larger-than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored.

Even worse, some areas become walled off, and inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in. Political diversity is likely to have a variety of positive effects by reducing the impact of confirmation bias and groupthink/majority consensus. Even research communities of highly intelligent and well-meaning individuals can fall prey to confirmation bias...

Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals, but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out" [1].

Moreover, consider the fact that politicians serve increasingly diverse communities with vastly different needs. We are a stronger, more unified country when everyone feels represented, and when our leadership includes the experiences and backgrounds of the people and their unique experiences it exemplifies another benefit of diversity. Suggesting that a singular ideology would be suitable for an entire group of people is just not logical, and Pro hasn't proven as such.

Finally on this point, I presented another example in the last round to prove people could hold competing point of views simultaneously, a.k.a. cognitive dissonance [2]. I wrote, “Suppose one's goal is to pass the Bar exam. They could cheat and risk getting caught, or they can try passing on their own and risk failure. The goal is specified and yet what one ought to do is still a concern.” Pro responded, "One would do that which leads to a state in which the exam is passed. Pragmatism is fully appropriate here." This completely ignores the point that one might also hold the simultaneous view of #1 being a good, decent and moral person by not cheating; and #2 valuing pragmatism but not wanting to risk getting caught, which would mean one doesn't in fact pass the test. Pro's oversimplified response did not address this dissonance.

2. Pro writes, "My arguments are aimed at proving that One Ideology which is correct must stand alone, and must be strived towards at all points." However I've already explained how different ideologies can work best for different people, i.e. the best way to study, the best way to govern, etc. Pro has dropped my point here - that incorrect ideologies (assuming they are objectively incorrect) can still have value, just less value.

I've explained that there is still value in the diversity of opinion; there is an inherent value in the discussion, exploration and acquired knowledge, practice and experience gained by challenging different ideas and considering various outcomes. Pro claims that these things are only instrumental in achieving the truth of one singular ideology. However this negates his own position as I've explained in the last round: In order for there to be value in negating diversity (value that Pro accepts does exist) then diversity needs to be present in the first place. Otherwise there is no scrutiny, no analysis and no gain at all.

In response, Pro presents the following analogy - Say that a plague renders millions on the brink of death. A cure is found and distributed. The curing of the disease is beneficial, but it is not the case that the disease itself deserves kudos for requiring it. Battling the disease is done to destroy the disease and enter a state where the disease is no more. The virtue is found in this eradication, not in the disease itself. Once again, Pro acknowledges the virtue is found in the eradication. He then goes on to suggest I am praising the *disease* when in fact I am praising the eradication. If the eradication (only possible through diversity) helps treat or better yet prevent new diseases, or introduce technology or discoveries that have more utility and value on balance to those lives lost by said disease, then the pursuit of knowledge was in fact helpful and worthwhile.

I provided an analogy of my own in the last round. “Pro's goal and value might be to establish truth, whereas my goal and value might be to pass time, sharpen my debate skills or have fun. The fact that Pro and I might disagree ideologically (as we are doing now in this debate) still has value, because it allows me to accomplish all 3 of those goals.” Pro claims that in this example, it is not ideological diversity that provides value. "It is the argumentation. It is clear that my opponent cannot know whether I am playing devil’s advocate or being sincere – it doesn’t matter. Thus, my actual ideology doesn’t matter, and therefore value must be determined by something outside of my ideology and whether or not it’s different than my opponent’s."

Once again Pro concedes his own argument. Even if he did in fact agree with me (so his real ideology is irrelevant) the fact that a different ideology exists in the first place is necessary for the argument to occur. You can't successfully or realistically argue the exact same point of view. Therefore, since Pro has acknowledged that I might find value in the debate itself, he is right that his ideology does not matter, however, the fact that he argues for a different ideology does.

Conclusion

Pro insists, "If what is right changes, the scenario itself changes." That's perfectly fine. What I said was that since what is "right" in a given scenario can change (something that Pro accepts), it's all the more reason to value diversity and different approaches and outcomes to different problems. That way people are more informed and prepared on the best way to handle various situations regardless of circumstance.


[1] https://judithcurry.com...
[2] http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ShabShoral 1 month ago
ShabShoral
The demonstration for prop 5 should specify that the "or" is exclusive.
Posted by dylancatlow 1 year ago
dylancatlow
I don't think ideological diversity is an inherent virtue, but it can be desirable in certain contexts. If everyone thinks the same way, then it's much harder to correct false beliefs because there's no one to challenge them. Where there's diversity of opinion and attitude there's a greater chance that truth will prevail in the end, because it's more likely that truth will at least get articulated by someone. So diversity of opinion should be encouraged in societies where people are not omniscient, but that's not to say that demonstrably true beliefs should be discarded in order to achieve ideological diversity. Rather, straying from the mainstream should simply be something that people are not afraid of doing, in recognition of the fact that dissent is sometimes the only way for human understanding to progress.
Posted by Jugenschild 1 year ago
Jugenschild
what or where are the arguments for or against? and some detail on the motion would be wecome
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
"Diversity is what is.. Or in other words "any life"
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
The only thing I'm weary about is the 10 day voting period. From what I've seen, people aren't good at reading/voting on this site lately :/
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
I'd be interested in this one
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Udel 12 months ago
Udel
ShabShoralDanielle
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is that there is no merit in believing the wrong thing and 2 things cannot both be right at the same time, therefore diversity in ideology is not a virtue. Con says that 2 things can both be right simultaneously accoridng to nondualism and dialetheism which Pro does not contest. Then Pro explains 2 things-- first that just because people have different values doesnt mean there is a right and wrong. For instance if someone prefers to eat their fave food first or save the best for last, those are 2 different ideologies but there is not truly a wrong answer. Pro does not have an answer for this, and Con points out that even if you believe the wrong thing, challenging yourself with diversity sharpens your skills and enables you to grow and learn for things in the future. This is a great point but ultimately what wins is pointing out different strokes for different folks (like the studying example) doesnt mean there is a wrong and exposure to new things is good.