I'd submit that in 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" is a much better description of "objectivity" than "possessing objective knowledge". — Pantagruel
I’d go one step further and say that the “objective” in “objective knowledge” or “objective reality” or “objective morality” just means that same thing: unbiased, divorced from any particular point of view, consistent with all points of view — which is not the same thing as consistent with all opinions, else it would be impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about objective things. — Pfhorrest
How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac
If everyone refused to consume the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, that action by itself would bring immense change. — Janus
's really up the individual to take responsibility for their own lives — Janus
common decency and compassion dictate that we should also take care of those who are unable to care of themselves. — Janus
Nothing imposed from "above" is ever going to solve the problems we face — Janus
the imposers are always prone to corruption. — Janus
the law should codify values which support social harmony — Janus
In other words, good reasons. — Pfhorrest
people who honestly and devoutly have genuinely bad intentions: don't engage with them, ignore them, ostracize them, lock them up or kill them as the situation requires and/ or allows. — Janus
Those pragmatic, common sense and decent values are not strong opinions or ideologies but necessary values if your aim is to achieve social harmony and fairness. — Janus
So, you're suggesting that it could be arguable that consuming all the unnecessary shit they fatten us up on, taking over responsibility for other people's lives, not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, imposing all these solutions 'from above', ignoring corruption, and not codifying values which support social harmony are examples of measures based on pragmatics, common sense and decency? — Janus
Awww. You're trying to clearly delineate a philosopher's efforts that testify of his love of wisdom, you're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake? — Isaac
There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac
A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so. — baker
There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.
It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them. — baker
To be clear: You're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?Who isn't? — Isaac
Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. Some of these people can rightly be considered ideologues, some are just so authoritarian that they don't allow anything else to exist in their proximity, some are extremely narcissistic.A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.
— baker
Who isn't? — Isaac
We are all human beings, and most humans share the same goals. It's just the means by which we attain them can vary. Most agree that being happy and healthy is good, but we disagree on what makes one happy and healthy or the means by which we obtain happiness and health.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)?
I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together. — baker
There is what is true in one instance, and then there is believing that makes it true in all instances.Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality? — baker
This is a red herring. The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day.This is an odd thing to say. If I'm unsure which path to take, and I decide the left is more likely to lead home than the right, are you saying that, in the absence of a person to talk to about it, i don't consider my assessment of likelihood as 'right'? What status would you say I'd assigned it then? — Isaac
Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. — baker
The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day. — Harry Hindu
taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.
not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.
imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.
ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.
and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac
Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. — baker
Thats is where you are wrong. If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? It's like asserting that there is only one god, but then all I have to do is point to all the other gods that are believed in. Which god is the right god?I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. — Isaac
That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume.Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual? — Isaac
If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? — Harry Hindu
That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume. — Harry Hindu
Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person? — Harry Hindu
It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependent upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries.You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each. — Isaac
LOL! I know! Because you don't give a shit what other answers people would give. You already assume that you know what the right answer is for them. That's my point!I didn't ask for the answers people would give. — Isaac
Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? Your examples are stupid.I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't. — Isaac
Carrying a weapon in public does nothing to infringe upon your right to be happy and healthy. Using a weapon on an unarmed person is wrong as it goes against what I said in infringing on other people's goals of being happy and healthy. So you are confusing the distinction between carrying a weapon in public and using one on innocent, unarmed people. Carrying a weapon can prevent you being a victim of an armed attack. Speak softly but carry a big stick.Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone. — Isaac
It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependet upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries. — Harry Hindu
Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? — Harry Hindu
you are confusing the distinction between carring a weapon and using one on innocent, unarmed people. — Harry Hindu
Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality).Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously. — Isaac
That's your problem, not mine. Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me.So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide? — Isaac
My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go.To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...
The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each. — Isaac
Again, you are conflating carrying a weapon with using it against innocent unarmed people. Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? Does driving a car make you want to run people over? Not everyone that owns a hammer, car, or gun harms innocent people with those things. In fact, most people that own those things don't harm innocent people with those things. Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. This is no different than racial profiling, which I think you would agree is wrong. So, why would you want to be inconsistent in your application of the rules, if not because of some political bias?No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns? — Isaac
Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality). — Harry Hindu
Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me. — Harry Hindu
My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go. — Harry Hindu
Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? — Harry Hindu
Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. — Harry Hindu
How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? — Harry Hindu
Well there's always the possibility that you are or I am wrong, no? If two people disagree about something, isn't it strange to assume that one is always automatically right and the other must be wrong? Seems like a constructive conversation would have to start from the idea that you might also be wrong about some things. Otherwise aren't you effectively always taking on the role of teacher/moral authority? I don't think anyone really likes being on the receiving end of such a conversation.
But aside from that I also do believe that you can come to different conclusions on ethical questions. And I don't mean this in a totally relativistic sense, better and worse arguments can be made, something can be more or less coherent, you can be misinformed etc... but usually - if it's not about extreme clear-cut cases - ethics is not like mathematics or science where you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that this one answer is the right one. And with politics I think this becomes even more questionable because of the enormous complexity involved. There are ideas that seem better or worse, but I don't think anybody really "knows" with any kind of certainty, and I would have that epistemic uncertainty reflected in the terms I use and in the way I approach those conversations. — ChatteringMonkey
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.