Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ethical anti-realism and political thought

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From what I know about the world, have learned about the world, and have seen of the world, and by my line of reasoning, it make the most sense.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 7:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:32:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
From what I know about the world, have learned about the world, and have seen of the world, and by my line of reasoning, it make the most sense.

I don't know what you believe in, lets say libertarianism. We can state facts about libertarianism or the implementation of it - but all you get are facts about economics or the political system. How do you go from this to 'this system is best' if you don't acknowledge these facts as leading to something or having normative content. If you were even willing to say something like "wealth is good" it would get you out of the entire problem, but for now it seems these moves are totally unjustified.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 7:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Political convictions are perfectly justifiable under subjective morality...the only requirement is that the parties involved have some semblance of agreement on their ethical goals. Since evolution and culture provide for most of this consensus, we can make arguments based upon it. It is unanimous for example that, we should pursue only what promotes the most happiness for the most people, from there our arguments can appeal to that assumption as the ultimate metric for right and wrong. This however, does not make the assumption objectively true, or the arguments derived from it objectively justified,...it does however root the our political convictions in a relatively significant base.
"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
10/8/2012 7:58:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Political convictions are perfectly justifiable under subjective morality...the only requirement is that the parties involved have some semblance of agreement on their ethical goals. Since evolution and culture provide for most of this consensus, we can make arguments based upon it. It is unanimous for example that, we should pursue only what promotes the most happiness for the most people, from there our arguments can appeal to that assumption as the ultimate metric for right and wrong. This however, does not make the assumption objectively true, or the arguments derived from it objectively justified,...it does however root the our political convictions in a relatively significant base.

Well, yeah, subjective morality "justifies" itself but lacks a universal justification. So, I guess to you saying 'free healthcare is good = I support free healthcare?' Right? So I could say 'free healthcare is bad' and it would just mean I don't support it. There would be no argument. Which version of subjectivism are you adopting? Cultural? Individual?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 8:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:58:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Political convictions are perfectly justifiable under subjective morality...the only requirement is that the parties involved have some semblance of agreement on their ethical goals. Since evolution and culture provide for most of this consensus, we can make arguments based upon it. It is unanimous for example that, we should pursue only what promotes the most happiness for the most people, from there our arguments can appeal to that assumption as the ultimate metric for right and wrong. This however, does not make the assumption objectively true, or the arguments derived from it objectively justified,...it does however root the our political convictions in a relatively significant base.

Well, yeah, subjective morality "justifies" itself but lacks a universal justification. So, I guess to you saying 'free healthcare is good = I support free healthcare?' Right? So I could say 'free healthcare is bad' and it would just mean I don't support it. There would be no argument. Which version of subjectivism are you adopting? Cultural? Individual?

My argument is more so this: "We both believe that humans have a right to life. My position against abortion gives humans the right to life. Ergo, you should concede to me." The initial assumption of a common ethical goal is a reasonable assumption because biology and culture instill in us some extremely basic moral paradigms which, though they may not be objectively justified, are relatively justified and therefore normatively functional.

We don't need universal justification for disagreement. We don't need universal justification for anything....and in fact, it's impossible to get universal justification for anything, not even logic itself. Just about everything we believe or hold as truth rests on a bed of uncertainty which makes finding true objectivity logically impossible.
"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
10/8/2012 8:13:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 8:06:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:58:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Political convictions are perfectly justifiable under subjective morality...the only requirement is that the parties involved have some semblance of agreement on their ethical goals. Since evolution and culture provide for most of this consensus, we can make arguments based upon it. It is unanimous for example that, we should pursue only what promotes the most happiness for the most people, from there our arguments can appeal to that assumption as the ultimate metric for right and wrong. This however, does not make the assumption objectively true, or the arguments derived from it objectively justified,...it does however root the our political convictions in a relatively significant base.

Well, yeah, subjective morality "justifies" itself but lacks a universal justification. So, I guess to you saying 'free healthcare is good = I support free healthcare?' Right? So I could say 'free healthcare is bad' and it would just mean I don't support it. There would be no argument. Which version of subjectivism are you adopting? Cultural? Individual?

My argument is more so this: "We both believe that humans have a right to life. My position against abortion gives humans the right to life. Ergo, you should concede to me." The initial assumption of a common ethical goal is a reasonable assumption because biology and culture instill in us some extremely basic moral paradigms which, though they may not be objectively justified, are relatively justified and therefore normatively functional.

We don't need universal justification for disagreement. We don't need universal justification for anything....and in fact, it's impossible to get universal justification for anything, not even logic itself. Just about everything we believe or hold as truth rests on a bed of uncertainty which makes finding true objectivity logically impossible.

Except that last statement? How certain are you of that?

I want to get back on track here, I asked for justification and you say that it occurs subjectively. I asked earlier - subjective to what? Individual desires? Culture? God? If it's justified subjectively then 'x is good' is equivalent to 'I believe x.' I just want to get your position.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 8:25:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 8:13:29 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/8/2012 8:06:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:58:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Political convictions are perfectly justifiable under subjective morality...the only requirement is that the parties involved have some semblance of agreement on their ethical goals. Since evolution and culture provide for most of this consensus, we can make arguments based upon it. It is unanimous for example that, we should pursue only what promotes the most happiness for the most people, from there our arguments can appeal to that assumption as the ultimate metric for right and wrong. This however, does not make the assumption objectively true, or the arguments derived from it objectively justified,...it does however root the our political convictions in a relatively significant base.

Well, yeah, subjective morality "justifies" itself but lacks a universal justification. So, I guess to you saying 'free healthcare is good = I support free healthcare?' Right? So I could say 'free healthcare is bad' and it would just mean I don't support it. There would be no argument. Which version of subjectivism are you adopting? Cultural? Individual?

My argument is more so this: "We both believe that humans have a right to life. My position against abortion gives humans the right to life. Ergo, you should concede to me." The initial assumption of a common ethical goal is a reasonable assumption because biology and culture instill in us some extremely basic moral paradigms which, though they may not be objectively justified, are relatively justified and therefore normatively functional.

We don't need universal justification for disagreement. We don't need universal justification for anything....and in fact, it's impossible to get universal justification for anything, not even logic itself. Just about everything we believe or hold as truth rests on a bed of uncertainty which makes finding true objectivity logically impossible.

Except that last statement? How certain are you of that?

Point taken....even though we can't prove true objectivity, there are certain fundamental things we must assume to have true objectivity in order for us to question whether it has true objectivity in the first place. These things we have no conceivable choice but to assume are certain...even if in actuality, they may not be. But this would only apply to logic. We can carry on just fine intellectually without assuming any ethical claims as certain.

I want to get back on track here, I asked for justification and you say that it occurs subjectively. I asked earlier - subjective to what? Individual desires? Culture? God? If it's justified subjectively then 'x is good' is equivalent to 'I believe x.' I just want to get your position.

I already answered that it's subjective to culture and biology. Culture and biology both establish a general consensus on what people value...that is, you have many people with the same subjective ethical goals. We can, from there, have arguments on what policies or positions satisfy those goals the best. Are those goals objectively justified?....well that question begs the question, so it's really absurd to ask it.
"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
10/8/2012 8:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I already answered that it's subjective to culture and biology. Culture and biology both establish a general consensus on what people value...that is, you have many people with the same subjective ethical goals. We can, from there, have arguments on what policies or positions satisfy those goals the best. Are those goals objectively justified?....well that question begs the question, so it's really absurd to ask it.

I don't understand how something can be subjective to our biology. I know culture puts forth certain norms....but biology? If you use the term 'subjective' in a descriptive sense, I'm totally with you. We have different moral codes and in a descriptive sense it would be subjective, but when I 'subjective' or 'objective' I'm using it in more of a prescriptive, meta-physical sense.

So, can we say, for you that 'x is good' means 'my culture supports x' and 'x is in proper accordance with biology.' You're starting to sound a bit like a natural law theorist here.
chris27862
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:03:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:32:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
From what I know about the world, have learned about the world, and have seen of the world, and by my line of reasoning, it make the most sense.
libratarian ideas have great appeal but there is a huge difference between politics as we would like them to be and the simple fact that politics are about the exercise of power to paraphrase jefferson if people could regulate themselves without goverment they would have done so log ago..
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:16:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Different people have different value systems. Some view equality more heavily, while others view freedom more heavily. These different value systems will cause a logical disagreement in political view (as what is best for my value system may be different than for yours).

It comes down to one's morals and how well one understands their own morals and how different theories may or may not achieve the best results for those morals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:21:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:16:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Different people have different value systems. Some view equality more heavily, while others view freedom more heavily. These different value systems will cause a logical disagreement in political view (as what is best for my value system may be different than for yours).

It comes down to one's morals and how well one understands their own morals and how different theories may or may not achieve the best results for those morals.

Yes, this is targeted towards ethical anti-realists. It essentially begins with the claim, adopted by many here, that ethical statements don't express propositions, or in the case of nihilism that 'all is permitted.' You can say 'it fits my value scheme' but eventually you'll have to justify the value scheme if you're a moral realist.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:24:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:21:06 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:16:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Different people have different value systems. Some view equality more heavily, while others view freedom more heavily. These different value systems will cause a logical disagreement in political view (as what is best for my value system may be different than for yours).

It comes down to one's morals and how well one understands their own morals and how different theories may or may not achieve the best results for those morals.

Yes, this is targeted towards ethical anti-realists. It essentially begins with the claim, adopted by many here, that ethical statements don't express propositions, or in the case of nihilism that 'all is permitted.' You can say 'it fits my value scheme' but eventually you'll have to justify the value scheme if you're a moral realist.

You don't have to justify it. I don't know why they are, but they are. Just like a person does not need to know why they themselves exist for them to exist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:32:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:24:24 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:21:06 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:16:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Different people have different value systems. Some view equality more heavily, while others view freedom more heavily. These different value systems will cause a logical disagreement in political view (as what is best for my value system may be different than for yours).

It comes down to one's morals and how well one understands their own morals and how different theories may or may not achieve the best results for those morals.

Yes, this is targeted towards ethical anti-realists. It essentially begins with the claim, adopted by many here, that ethical statements don't express propositions, or in the case of nihilism that 'all is permitted.' You can say 'it fits my value scheme' but eventually you'll have to justify the value scheme if you're a moral realist.

You don't have to justify it. I don't know why they are, but they are. Just like a person does not need to know why they themselves exist for them to exist.

Oh come on, you're a rational human who's able to step outside his own personal likes and dislikes. If ethical statements don't express truths, then you admit your political views aren't aiming at what is really 'best' or 'good.' Similarly, changes in belief aren't going towards what is really 'best' or 'good' so it would seem your train of thought never advances.

So, you support political views X, Y, and Z because these tie back to values that you have. As for the values...if I asked you "why?" would you say no justification or that they'd be justified on the basis of you having them? If you completely abandon justification you'd be in tune with the OP, I'm just interested in whether there were other responses.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:39:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:32:16 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:24:24 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:21:06 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:16:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Different people have different value systems. Some view equality more heavily, while others view freedom more heavily. These different value systems will cause a logical disagreement in political view (as what is best for my value system may be different than for yours).

It comes down to one's morals and how well one understands their own morals and how different theories may or may not achieve the best results for those morals.

Yes, this is targeted towards ethical anti-realists. It essentially begins with the claim, adopted by many here, that ethical statements don't express propositions, or in the case of nihilism that 'all is permitted.' You can say 'it fits my value scheme' but eventually you'll have to justify the value scheme if you're a moral realist.

You don't have to justify it. I don't know why they are, but they are. Just like a person does not need to know why they themselves exist for them to exist.

Oh come on, you're a rational human who's able to step outside his own personal likes and dislikes. If ethical statements don't express truths, then you admit your political views aren't aiming at what is really 'best' or 'good.' Similarly, changes in belief aren't going towards what is really 'best' or 'good' so it would seem your train of thought never advances.

There is no really "best" or "good" there is only what one believes if "best" or "good." To say otherwise would be to imply objective morality (or moral realism, if you prefer). However, this does not mean that they are irrational.


So, you support political views X, Y, and Z because these tie back to values that you have. As for the values...if I asked you "why?" would you say no justification or that they'd be justified on the basis of you having them? If you completely abandon justification you'd be in tune with the OP, I'm just interested in whether there were other responses.

Yeah, but I wanted to feel smart by saying stuff on this topic, even if it wasn't in disagreement. :(
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:46:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no really "best" or "good" there is only what one believes if "best" or "good." To say otherwise would be to imply objective morality (or moral realism, if you prefer). However, this does not mean that they are irrational.

Well, I do believe in objective morality but that's a different discussion. Can you tell me how they're not irrational? You have a value system, but AFAIK you believe it's beyond justification. I kind of want to nail down your position, if someone says "x is good" what do you think they really mean?

Similarly, if no political system is really better than another how you can provide real reasons? It would seem to be if a choice is made without reasons it would be non-rational.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:03:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:46:48 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There is no really "best" or "good" there is only what one believes if "best" or "good." To say otherwise would be to imply objective morality (or moral realism, if you prefer). However, this does not mean that they are irrational.

Well, I do believe in objective morality but that's a different discussion. Can you tell me how they're not irrational? You have a value system, but AFAIK you believe it's beyond justification. I kind of want to nail down your position, if someone says "x is good" what do you think they really mean?

Not that it is beyond justification, but that I am not able to justify it. Our conscious part of our brain is only a small part of who we are. There are aspects about us that we cannot readily control, such as belief. The ones that are easy to observe are our bodily functions, as they are controlled by a different part of the brain. Or our sexuality. I cannot say "I am now a homosexual" and it be true. I cannot consciously will it to be true or untrue, it simply is. Likewise, I cannot simply will away my beliefs or my moral code. If you believe that there are objective morals, you cannot simply will yourself to believe that they don't exist (you can argue from devil's advocate). Or if you believe something is moral or immoral, you cannot just will yourself to change your belief.

That is not to say that they can never change, but it is not a change you can control. My views have changed a few times on some issues, and it is not because I choose to change my views, my views changed on their own (or more accurately, due to various realizations) and my only conscious choice was to acknowledge those changes or hide them.

Perhaps our moral codes are nothing more than chemical balances in our brains (after all, mind altering chemicals can temporarily effect beliefs on morality), but that doesn't change the existence of those beliefs.


Similarly, if no political system is really better than another how you can provide real reasons? It would seem to be if a choice is made without reasons it would be non-rational.

If a choice is made without reason, it is irrational. However, the choice of political belief is made on the reasoning of our morals. But if our morals are not a choice, then they cannot be said to be irrational.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:09:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Last thing I'll say before I call it a night: If our political views are best described as tastes or sentiments then so are everybody else's. We'd just be voting based on our tastes, which aren't in our control - and moreover, it doesn't even seem like there'd be real disagreements. If two people disagreed it wouldn't be based on fact, but rather taste. I don't know, as a rational being I'd probably stop taking politics seriously after this. There's no truth to the matter, pick your views and they're ultimately just as rational and well-supported as any of the experts in the field.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:17:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 1:09:12 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Last thing I'll say before I call it a night: If our political views are best described as tastes or sentiments then so are everybody else's. We'd just be voting based on our tastes, which aren't in our control - and moreover, it doesn't even seem like there'd be real disagreements. If two people disagreed it wouldn't be based on fact, but rather taste. I don't know, as a rational being I'd probably stop taking politics seriously after this. There's no truth to the matter, pick your views and they're ultimately just as rational and well-supported as any of the experts in the field.

A few things...

1) Many people have not come to the realization of their own morals and how they relate to political belief, so they can entirely be acting irrationally.

2) While we cannot consciously change our beliefs, that is not to say that they cannot be changed for us. Because we cannot unthink something, the spread of ideas, alternative views, and various logical arguments, debating someone on a topic can change their view. This is often done by presenting them with something that they've never thought of before, and once they understand that thought, they can't unthink it (now, we could get into how fear of change can cause people to block out new thoughts, but that is for a different day). And since they can't unthink it, they cannot prevent how it may change their beliefs (they can only acknowledge or deny the change).

This can best be seen where some people have grown up sheltered and their beliefs are caused by a selective set of life experiences. Once new experiences are added, their beliefs often change.

It is kind of like asking someone what their favorite ice creme flavor is, then having them try a new flavor and them finding out that they like that one better. They are not consciously choosing to like that better, they just do.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:39:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My political beliefs rest upon both my 'own' preferences and those of the collective as to what ends are desired. While there may be a foundational disagreement as to some of these ends, many of these desired ends are the same. Furthermore, it is common enough for a person's desired ends to change, and hence reflect others' desired ends. So, while I may propagate my own self-interest to a degree, there are many common political foundations, and I understand that occasionally my own self-interest ought to be suppressed in the short term and on some desired ends for longer term gain.

From the above you'd probably think that I hold to a strict form of consequentialism. I don't - I'm not endorsing the statement 'the ends justify the means' , for the means are inherently relevant to some other end. We merely hold ends to be desirable ceteris paribus. In this sense, I hold a loose consequentialism.

Through this thought process I 'justify' my convictions, at least, those convictions I have. However, I am rather presupposing a common observable ground and desirable ends, which I suppose (this isn't something I'm particularly sure about) would arise at first from some mixture of observation of our surroundings and an examination of our internal thought processes.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2012 1:07:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Many people have not come to the realization of their own morals and how they relate to political belief, so they can entirely be acting irrationally.

But are their decisions any worse under your view? It wouldn't seem so. My political beliefs could be based on the roll of a die and they'd be just as grounded in validity as yours. You've already admitted that there's no fact of the matter. The minute you deny this you've introduced some element of objectivity where some reasons have become better than others in light of the view that some systems are better than others.

2) While we cannot consciously change our beliefs, that is not to say that they cannot be changed for us. Because we cannot unthink something, the spread of ideas, alternative views, and various logical arguments, debating someone on a topic can change their view. This is often done by presenting them with something that they've never thought of before, and once they understand that thought, they can't unthink it (now, we could get into how fear of change can cause people to block out new thoughts, but that is for a different day). And since they can't unthink it, they cannot prevent how it may change their beliefs (they can only acknowledge or deny the change).

Yes, but it would seem under your conception that the relevant knowledge can't be accounted for (i.e. the person convinced isn't moving from a position of less knowledge to more knowledge because there is no fact of the matter.) Note the term 'relevant' knowledge - you can tell me facts about an issue, but none of these facts are relevant to the central issue we're trying to decide on. It would be like if we were discussing ice cream flavors and I told you 'Chocolate tastes rich' and you somehow changed your mind. We both agree with the ice cream comparison, and you'd surely agree that arguing over which ice cream flavor is best is absurd, am I right? Doesn't the same occur with politics?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 5:39:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Morality based =/= reality based. It's immoral to pay someone less than their expenses, but setting a minimum wage only prevents people below minimum wage from being hired.
Drugs are immoral, but the prohibition of drugs only creates black markets.

Politics is not about morality it is about government policy, and the organization of government. Government policy is based on the real world, not the "what if" world of day dreamers. The organization of government depends on the constitution, and is therefore set it law. Government policies can be influenced by morality, but they don't serve a moral problems, they serve real world problems.

I'm getting really sick of this morality BS when it comes to politics. Morality has to do with honor, not law. It is immoral to cuss out your grandma, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 5:46:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 5:42:49 PM, DanT wrote:


better video
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views.

AC vs DC during the War of Currents was 100% rational, and was not morally based. The differences in views arose because experts (like always) disagreed on which method was best.

Take another example. In economics there are multiple solutions to a problem; there is the first best and second best solution. Disagreements may arise over what is first best, and what is second best. The disagreements could arise over unknown factor, such as responses by other governments, unrecognized influences, and unforeseen consequences. It could also arise over disagreements regarding the nature of known factors. Free Trade is the most Pragmatically Optimal policy a country can follow, but it is not necessarily the most Optimal policy available.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:12:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 5:39:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How do you justify your political convictions? It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views. If I feel that libertarianism provides the best for people, and you feel conservativism does, it doesn't seem like that's a disagreement (or more to it than a difference in ice cream flavor preferences.)

To endorse a system A is basically to say 'A is best' and give it a special status over other systems. It's a normative claim.

Morality based =/= reality based. It's immoral to pay someone less than their expenses, but setting a minimum wage only prevents people below minimum wage from being hired.
Drugs are immoral, but the prohibition of drugs only creates black markets.

Politics is not about morality it is about government policy, and the organization of government. Government policy is based on the real world, not the "what if" world of day dreamers. The organization of government depends on the constitution, and is therefore set it law. Government policies can be influenced by morality, but they don't serve a moral problems, they serve real world problems.

I'm getting really sick of this morality BS when it comes to politics. Morality has to do with honor, not law. It is immoral to cuss out your grandma, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

You seem to think morality is totally separate from empirical facts which seems to be the cause of some of the confusion. We're not all Kantians. The thing is, you bring this silly notion where like "real life" teaches us lessons totally apart from the moral that just have to become integrated into government policy in some kind of vacuum. What are governmental decisions? What ought to be the aim of government? These are moral questions, not answers you can just ask "real life" or "the facts" or even the Constitution.

To take the Constitution as seriously as you do you have to believe the document has an enormous amount of moral force, or there's no conceivable way that you could place this much value on it. But where did the Constitution arise from? In the words of the founders, they arose from absolute moral commitments that simply exist that the Constitution simply sought to latch onto. If there is no such moral code, the Constitution is basically trash. If there is, the Constitution is only legitimate insofar as it measures up to that objective code.

It is immoral to cuss out your grandma, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Nobody's saying we should - would it not be immoral to arrest someone for cussing out their grandma?

Drugs are immoral

I disagree with this one.

You can insist that the "facts" and "real life" tell us what to do, and while on its face it's not really philosophically defensible, it's something you can work with. Moral naturalism posits that moral facts are reducible to natural facts, so under that doctrine the facts are meaningful but only insofar as you can make sense of them and group them under a general principle.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:17:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:04:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/8/2012 7:21:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It seems to be that you'd have to admit that your reasons for having your respective views are not rational. Similarly, if differences in views are rooted in sentiment rather than reason there'd technically be no disagreement between competing views.

AC vs DC during the War of Currents was 100% rational, and was not morally based. The differences in views arose because experts (like always) disagreed on which method was best.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

Take another example. In economics there are multiple solutions to a problem; there is the first best and second best solution. Disagreements may arise over what is first best, and what is second best. The disagreements could arise over unknown factor, such as responses by other governments, unrecognized influences, and unforeseen consequences. It could also arise over disagreements regarding the nature of known factors. Free Trade is the most Pragmatically Optimal policy a country can follow, but it is not necessarily the most Optimal policy available.

Economics at best can tell you a fact. No where to my knowledge have economists claimed that they are aiming at the good in the sense that philosophy does. "Best" is only being used in a limited sense, though economics presupposes its own normative foundation.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:29:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Con't: Let's say I instate a policy that intends to destroy poverty and liberate the middle class but instead creates millions of deaths and widespread starvation. Does it make sense to blame morality there, or therefore say that morality has no place in politics? Of course not, the issue is with the facts. I never said disregard facts, and the facts can work towards a moral goal: Everybody's happy, this is an easy example.

But let's say I come up with a come up with a really effective policy that allows us to very quietly kill homeless people without families. Lets even say, and it would be quite believable, that the policy would save us money (they'd be welfare recipients) - the economist would seem to say that this is good. Indeed, from a purely economic point - it's good. But here, the empirical facts aren't really telling us what to do, what you need is serious moral discussion. All the other issues involve moral discussion, but with many we're simply on the same page because all else being equal no one likes to see people starving or dead.