Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality?To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu
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)? — baker
Assuming that you are right is one thing. Proving it to others is another. — Harry Hindu
Once you try to prove it to others and they don't agree, at that point you may want to revisit your assumption. — Harry Hindu
I'm not saying that you being wrong is the only possibility if someone disagrees, just that it is a possibility to be considered. — Harry Hindu
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. — Harry Hindu
To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu
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)? — baker
How does this refer to anything I said?You don't need to believe that any differences between yourself and others must inevitably be their moral failures in order to negotiate with them. — Kenosha Kid
Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay!For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good.
What do you mean?Yep, probably. But not all ideas are in this category, surely? — Isaac
What do you mean? — baker
I suspect that commonality has to do with more than just some moral and epistemic egoists/narcissists discovering that they have something in common. No, I think they firmly believe that there is more to them considering some film to be the best one; that they don't think it's just a matter of their subjective preference, but that there is more to it: that the film truly, really, inherently, objectively _is_ the best one.Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac
Must must must. What is it with this must??Some ideas must surely be ideas we've already heard, no? When we re-hear those ideas, must 'philosophers' give them due consideration on each occasion, or may they say "I've already heard this one, and disagree". If the former, then it somewhat gives the floor to whichever ideas are repeated most, which seem inefficient at best. — Isaac
Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac
Must must must. What is it with this must?? — baker
A philosopher is supposed to "give all ideas a fair shake" — baker
How does this refer to anything I said? — baker
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 — baker
"For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good."
Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay! — baker
What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me!It's becoming increasingly clear that you have an idiosyncratic idea of what politics is. — Kenosha Kid
There comes a point when it's important not to be an ass, Buridan's or otherwise.So you seem now to be saying that a philosopher is not, after all supposed to give all ideas a fair shake, but rather only those which would be neither a rehash, nor fruitless? — Isaac
Politics does not proceed on the basis of a common morality. — Kenosha Kid
Because to begin with, people, unless they are pathologically narcissistic, have an existential need to believe there is more to their preferences than just subjective whims and molecular chance.No doubt such people exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was "why must lack of objectivity preclude commonality?", not "why may it do so in some circumstances?" — Isaac
What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me! — baker
if "being objective" means adopting a certain type of perspective oriented towards agreement with others, then a lack of objectivity certainly has to, at the very least, limit the extent to which commonality can be realized. — Pantagruel
True. But since that's not what "being objective" typically means, I'm not sure I see the relevance. — Isaac
its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" — Pantagruel
So if I found myself in a group of Rolling Stones fans, a more 'objective' view of whether Mick Jagger hit the right note would be obtained, not by analysing the recording, but by adjusting my belief thereby gained to be more consistent with that of his fan base, regardless of the spectrum analyser. — Isaac
If you were at a concert, yes. — Pantagruel
what if he was "objectively" out of tune, but so was the entire band, uniformly? Then he would be objectively in tune. — Pantagruel
- People who solidly hold correct opinions for good reasons
- People who just socially identify with the side of those correct opinions
- People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all ideas a fair shake
- People who have been duped or manipulated into thinking that bad causes are good causes
- People who honestly and devoutly have genuinely bad intentions — Pfhorrest
People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all (non-dogmatic, non-ideological) ideas a fair shake:the critical thinkers, the fair-minded, the realists, the anti-idealogues. Cleave to them, for they are the only hope for humanity. — Janus
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.