following your categorization someone who disagrees with you can only incorrect, because they are either confused/not informed enough/to be converted (middle group) stupid/misguided (4th group), or morally corrupt (5th group). Doesn't seem all that respectful to me.
— ChatteringMonkey
I think you've misunderstood what Pfhorrest is talking about. He's suggesting a way of approaching people who disagree with you using categories relative to the person using them. So there are no other ways to categorise those who disagree with you ethically. They're either wrong, misinformed (where an ethical choice might be based on empirical data), or misguided (where an ethical choice might require some complex consideration). I'm not sure what other category you might imagine putting people in...
'Also right' doesn't work because that would take them outside the scope of the people being considered (those who disagree with you).
'Differently right'...? 'Using alternative facts'...? 'Not yet right'...?
What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac
A person whom you think might be right is not a person with whom you disagree and so is outside of the scope of situations this advice applies to. — Isaac
Well there's always the possibility that you are or I am wrong, no? — ChatteringMonkey
Following Habermas (and discourse theory in general) if you are entering into a genuine dialog, then you must not only be prepared to offer reasons but also be persuaded by them. — Pantagruel
People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all ideas a fair shake — Pfhorrest
? Seems to be right there in the OP. — Isaac
I think you've misunderstood what Pfhorrest is talking about. He's suggesting a way of approaching people who disagree with you using categories relative to the person using them. — Isaac
What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac
I would have a category for 'totally different or incompatible' for the genuinely religious and traditional. It's not that I think they have bad intentions (5) or that they are duped or misinformed (if they consciously affirm their faith) (4), but that they have a totally different and incompatible way of thinking about ethics and society. — ChatteringMonkey
I would have a category for 'totally different or incompatible' for the genuinely religious and traditional. It's not that I think they have bad intentions (5) or that they are duped or misinformed (if they consciously affirm their faith) (4), but that they have a totally different and incompatible way of thinking about ethics and society.
— ChatteringMonkey
If they’re well-intentioned just for bad reasons, that would put them in group 2. E.g. if you’re a socialist atheist and a socialist Christian agrees with you politically but for religious rather than rational reasons, they’re group 2 to you. OTOH a prosperity theologian would be group 5 to you: they really wholeheartedly and devoutly believe something that is completely contrary to any good reasons you can think of. — Pfhorrest
The problem is that you don't see fence-sitting as a legitimate position, like the left or right. The only possible positions for you is left or right and any other position is "fence-sitting". What a limited way to see the world.I do. The "fence sitter" in the conversation elsewhere that inspired this thread reminds me of a younger me. It's for the sake of people like that that I'm even thinking about this topic. I don't want to see them treated as enemies, but as potential friends. — Pfhorrest
In other words, people that don't limit their thinking like you do and think like you do can't be part of the discussion, but you can decide what is right for me? Damn, bruh. You're nothing more than an authoritarian despot. You're getting worse everyday.Because politics is a normative field. The questions at hand are what are the right or wrong things to do with our society. Anyone who thinks that nothing is actually right or wrong are just bowing out of that discussion. Anyone who is participating in that discussion is asserting something as right or wrong and acting as though some people (like themselves) are correct in their assessment of which is which and others are incorrect. — Pfhorrest
Its not possible for us both to be objectively correct, but it is possible for both of to be objectively wrong. Pfhorrest seems incapable of acknowledging the latter, or at least acknowledge the possibility that there is no objective morality.What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac
Its not possible for us both to be objectively correct, but it is possible for both of to be objectively wrong. — Harry Hindu
A group-thinker doesn't know what is wrong or right. Group-thinkers look to the group to tell them what is wrong or right. This is pleading to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies, therefore cannot be the objectively right thing to do. — Harry Hindu
At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily.Putting people.that you don't know into groups. — Harry Hindu
Yes, absolutely. In European countries, things are not so either-or or black-and-white as in the US. Although there is a less or more visible trend toward such a simplification and polarization of political life in Europe as well.Ok I see now what my difficulty with the categorization may be. You're looking at it from an American perspective for the most part I guess. In my country, and most of European Countries, we don't have a two-party system. We have 5 "main-stream" parties and a couple of extreme parties at either end, who have to form coalitions to form a government. So "agrees with you politically" is not a simple black or white matter usually. — ChatteringMonkey
Ok I see now what my difficulty with the categorization may be. You're looking at it from an American perspective for the most part I guess. In my country, and most of European Countries, we don't have a two-party system. We have 5 "main-stream" parties and a couple of extreme parties at either end, who have to form coalitions to form a government. So "agrees with you politically" is not a simple black or white matter usually.
— ChatteringMonkey
Yes, absolutely. In European countries, things are not so either-or or black-and-white as in the US. Although there is a less or more visible trend toward such a simplification and polarization of political life in Europe as well. — baker
How can political discussion on an internet forum be productive and effective?The topic of this thread isn't determining which is which, but just what's a good way to address people relative to their place on a spectrum of (dis)agreement about which is which. "A good way" both in the sense of a kind and respectful way, and also in the sense of a productive and effective way. — Pfhorrest
Indeed, this is why a philosopher cannot be a politician, nor a politician a philosopher.? Seems to be right there in the OP.
— Isaac
I'd say it is more a fundamental premise which contradicts the reasonableness of some of the other categories. — Pantagruel
That is questionable. Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look often gets you into trouble.At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily. — baker
My point was that one of the ways of how you treat people whose position you disagree with (now) is by acknolwedging that there is the possibility that the reason they disagree with you is because you are wrong. That never seems to be even a contemplated possibility for Pfhorrest.The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac
Sure, for your own social well-being, not because of what they said is true.I don't really understand how this comment relates to either my post, or the OP. Regardless of that, it's obviously wrong. Some people believe quite strongly in principles like democracy, for example, where, in its most radical form, what the majority believe is the right course of action is exactly the right course of action. It can also be a very useful heuristic in situations where one is inexperienced (especially where the group in question is vastly more experienced). There are numerous scenarios where trusting the collective judgement of a group is a good logical choice. — Isaac
What do you mean by that?Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look — Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that?there is no such thing as an objective morality — Harry Hindu
Presumably a philosopher will stay open to new ideas indefinitely, so that any conclusion will, at most, be just temporary. — baker
Presumably a philosopher will stay open to new ideas indefinitely, so that any conclusion will, at most, be just temporary. — baker
there is the possibility that the reason they disagree with you is because you are wrong. — Harry Hindu
That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine.there is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that? — baker
You seem to be just as thick-headed as Pfhorrest. Assuming that you are right is one thing. Proving it to others is another. Once you try to prove it to others and they don't agree, at that point you may want to revisit your assumption. I'm not saying that you being wrong is the only possibility if someone disagrees, just that it is a possibility to be considered. If you don't consider that, then you would be no better than the person you are arguing with that you assume is wrong and just won't admit it, or even consider it.I don't understand how this could possibly work as an assessment of a disagreement about an idea you currently think is right. How could it possibly be the case the reason they disagree with you (according to you) is because you're wrong? If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't hold the idea in question. So we have to only include categories which assume you're right. The question I understood the OP to be addressing is "assuming I'm right, why might my interlocutor think the way they do?" — Isaac
Ethics is about knowing the difference between right and wrong. So ethics is based upon a sound epistemology. The problem of induction is akin to the problem of ethics. Is what is right for me in this particular circumstance good for another in a similar circumstance? How do you know that what is right for you in a particular circumstance is always right for not just you, but everyone else?The important point is that the OP is about ethics, not knowledge in general. In most ethical cases one must act in accordance with some assumption (many more empirical cases of knowledge fall into this category too). Personally I don't see much merit in making an entirely academic distinction between 'acting as if x were right / the case' and 'believing x is right / the case', especially in ethics and politics, the two are for all intents and purposes, the same. Which means that, for all binomial dilemmas (and obviously all dilemmas can be framed binomially as x,~x), we can treat each person as believing either x or ~x. — Isaac
Presumably a philosopher is still a human and still in the process of learning, so to him, there are ideas that are new, even if someone else might have known those ideas for a long time.I wasn't really referring to 'new' ideas. Very few ideas are new. The vast majority have been expressed before. So what about those? OK to categorise them, or do we have to remain open to them indefinitely? — Isaac
My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?There is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that?
— baker
That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.