Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Correct Answer

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sometimes when arguing with people, I get so annoyed that I give up and stop trying as if I were trying to teach rocket science to a toddler. It makes me wonder what the point of all this arguing and debate is. Before we can argue, we have to agree upon the aim of our argument. Two ideas with the intention of meeting 2 separate goals cannot be debated,....that would be an aimless squabble. So, that said, what is the goal of all political ideologies that lends them the licence to compare and debate? Is it the happiness of all mankind, the happiness of the maximum amount of members of mankind, the freedom of mankind, etc.?

If there are ideologies that pursue different goals, then they must debate what goal is best FIRST, before even discussing the policies to reach it. Once all points of the political spectrum come to an agreement on the aim of man, there will then be a right and a wrong answer. There will then be an objective board upon which to test the success of policies and all debate and argument will finally feel genuinely fruitful.

Thoughts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 10:49:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 10:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sometimes when arguing with people, I get so annoyed that I give up and stop trying as if I were trying to teach rocket science to a toddler. It makes me wonder what the point of all this arguing and debate is. Before we can argue, we have to agree upon the aim of our argument. Two ideas with the intention of meeting 2 separate goals cannot be debated,....that would be an aimless squabble. So, that said, what is the goal of all political ideologies that lends them the licence to compare and debate? Is it the happiness of all mankind, the happiness of the maximum amount of members of mankind, the freedom of mankind, etc.?

If there are ideologies that pursue different goals, then they must debate what goal is best FIRST, before even discussing the policies to reach it. Once all points of the political spectrum come to an agreement on the aim of man, there will then be a right and a wrong answer. There will then be an objective board upon which to test the success of policies and all debate and argument will finally feel genuinely fruitful.

Thoughts?

bravo I applaud you for your correctness. I have been thinking about this for a long time and actually asked this to a liberal teacher of mine, good post.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:05:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 10:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sometimes when arguing with people, I get so annoyed that I give up and stop trying as if I were trying to teach rocket science to a toddler. It makes me wonder what the point of all this arguing and debate is. Before we can argue, we have to agree upon the aim of our argument. Two ideas with the intention of meeting 2 separate goals cannot be debated,....that would be an aimless squabble. So, that said, what is the goal of all political ideologies that lends them the licence to compare and debate? Is it the happiness of all mankind, the happiness of the maximum amount of members of mankind, the freedom of mankind, etc.?

If there are ideologies that pursue different goals, then they must debate what goal is best FIRST, before even discussing the policies to reach it. Once all points of the political spectrum come to an agreement on the aim of man, there will then be a right and a wrong answer. There will then be an objective board upon which to test the success of policies and all debate and argument will finally feel genuinely fruitful.

Thoughts?

You agreed upon a common goal.

Did you agree upon your factual and moral premises?

Because if you both built your primary arguments off different premises, it can be impossible to create a middle ground. You have to debate at a level of basicness where premises are unchallenged by both sides. Otherwise, you're addressing a symptom of your disagreement, not the disagreement itself.

An instance of this not being easy: pro-lifers and pro-choices have a difficult time agreeing on premises because one such premise is "life begins at conception." It is useless to for a pro-lifer and pro-choicer to argue about what rights to assign to a fetus until the definition of what is "alive" is agreed upon or it is agreed upon that the introduction of life, regardless of when it is, is not relevant to the issue.

To the pro-choicer, the pro-lifer looks like a retard for essentially wanting to assign rights to an inanimate object. To the pro-lifer, the pro-choicer looks like a retard for wanting to assign rights to what they would consider the pro-choicer's equivalent of a new born baby.

Another example: some economists argue policy from the standpoint that the poorest ought to helped best they can be. Others argue policy from the standpoint that people ought to be left alone entirely. Both side regards the other as retards when they say what they think is "best" for America since neither agree on the scale.

The "scale" to which you speak of is essentially an attempt to create a shared moral premise.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 11:05:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/30/2011 10:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sometimes when arguing with people, I get so annoyed that I give up and stop trying as if I were trying to teach rocket science to a toddler. It makes me wonder what the point of all this arguing and debate is. Before we can argue, we have to agree upon the aim of our argument. Two ideas with the intention of meeting 2 separate goals cannot be debated,....that would be an aimless squabble. So, that said, what is the goal of all political ideologies that lends them the licence to compare and debate? Is it the happiness of all mankind, the happiness of the maximum amount of members of mankind, the freedom of mankind, etc.?

If there are ideologies that pursue different goals, then they must debate what goal is best FIRST, before even discussing the policies to reach it. Once all points of the political spectrum come to an agreement on the aim of man, there will then be a right and a wrong answer. There will then be an objective board upon which to test the success of policies and all debate and argument will finally feel genuinely fruitful.

Thoughts?

You agreed upon a common goal.

Did you agree upon your factual and moral premises?

Because if you both built your primary arguments off different premises, it can be impossible to create a middle ground. You have to debate at a level of basicness where premises are unchallenged by both sides. Otherwise, you're addressing a symptom of your disagreement, not the disagreement itself.

An instance of this not being easy: pro-lifers and pro-choices have a difficult time agreeing on premises because one such premise is "life begins at conception." It is useless to for a pro-lifer and pro-choicer to argue about what rights to assign to a fetus until the definition of what is "alive" is agreed upon or it is agreed upon that the introduction of life, regardless of when it is, is not relevant to the issue.

To the pro-choicer, the pro-lifer looks like a retard for essentially wanting to assign rights to an inanimate object. To the pro-lifer, the pro-choicer looks like a retard for wanting to assign rights to what they would consider the pro-choicer's equivalent of a new born baby.

Another example: some economists argue policy from the standpoint that the poorest ought to helped best they can be. Others argue policy from the standpoint that people ought to be left alone entirely. Both side regards the other as retards when they say what they think is "best" for America since neither agree on the scale.

The "scale" to which you speak of is essentially an attempt to create a shared moral premise.

Even more general than that, what is the goal of morality, such that we may have a debate on which moral premise is best, such that we may have a debate on which ideology agrees with said moral premise best, such that we may debate on which policy best follows said ideology.

This may be a little bit unrealistic, but just in general, there needs to be a board of objectives to refer to, otherwise debate is just a crossfire of arguments with no right and wrong answers and no method of gauging success.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:45:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" - Hume

What you honestly value is beyond the narrow scope of reason. Your experiences, feelings, and interactions will undoubtedly change your values which will lead to "large scale" ideological changes. There's certainly some amount of empirical argument that can be used to alter a certain position or frame it in a different perspective, but there are invariably limits to what rational discourse about a given policy can touch in terms of those core values.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:45:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, in many cases you can establish goals for which shared moral premises are not necessarily needed.

For instance, we can argue that "Increased IQ leads in to increased GDP growth." In order for one side to persuade the other, you do not necessarily need to share moral scales.

However, you WOULD need to agree on something like: correlation is not causation.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Absolutely, if it's strictly an empirical question then collect the data and do the research needed. If it's policy making there's an inherently moral element at work though.