Do you think they realize they’re not thinking critically? — Pfhorrest
No, not if they are not thinking critically. — Janus
Doing it for a living only makes it more likely you will be predisposed to bias in my experience. — Janus
And that is what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone. Every time you post a reply you contradict yourself, just like Pfhorrest. Its impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.Yeah, pig-headedly refusing to address an issue doesn't make the issue go away. We're talking about moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are almost exclusively social which means that any answer cannot be individually tailored. There can only be a single right answer and it must apply to everyone sharing the common interest that isvthe subject of the dilemma. — Isaac
what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone. — Harry Hindu
What I've been saying is what you assume to be right or wrong can only be the case for yourself and that you have to talk to others to discover what is right or wrong for them. — Harry Hindu
Moral dilemmas are the result of conflicting goals. They are a dilemma because every individual is considered equal and should have the equal right of achieving their goals. So moral dilemmas are the result of the idea of equality. — Harry Hindu
So that out of the way, the question is - where is that point? At what level of real-world consequence is it justified to show your disrespect for someone's position in order to let them know that your group do not accept such attitudes? — Isaac
Hate speech and bigotry is probably a good place to start questioning the user. — schopenhauer1
Just because vegans feel non-vegans are wrong in their actions/views, and that non- vegans continue with their views/actions does NOT mean non-vegans are absolute enemies that deserve contempt, disrespect, etc. — schopenhauer1
Any moral claim argued in good faith on a philosophy forum is meant to be an exchange and healthy debate in the realm of ideas. Both parties should know this. — schopenhauer1
All I am really saying is that there is a vast difference between people who are committed to an ideology, a system of ideas which purports to be generally salvational either in this life or the next, and the everyday moral principles which pretty much everybody agrees about. I think there are never good reasons for the former, and every good reason to hold to the common moral principles; the latter are not arguable, and in fact people do not generally argue about them, unless they are idiot philosophers. — Janus
what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone.
— Harry Hindu
Where does he say anything like that? — Isaac
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
The question is not what might, later, turn out to be the case, but what I now consider the case to be. That I might later be wrong is trivially true of every position I hold, so it's useless as a distinguishing property.
The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac
I'm pleasantly surprised to see Isaac of all people being my staunchest defender here, but yeah, he's basically said everything I'd want to say in response already. Thanks Isaac. — Pfhorrest
So NOW you finally have come around to seeing things as I have been explaining them. The problem is that you believe that compromises can always be reached. If they could, there would be no such things as moral dilemmas. You need to give me an explanation as to what moral "truth" can be true for all in the same way that gravity is true for all. We all fall at the same rate, but how hard we hit the ground depends on our mass, and there is no compromise in that...so what do you call the solution arrived at via working through this conflict, after we've talked to everyone, asked them all what's right for them, devised some compromise which best meets everybody's views...? That solution is the _____ solution. Fill in the blank for me because I'm having trouble filling it with any word that isn't just a synonym for 'right'.
And what would you say to someone determined to have their solution implemented despite it not being the (right) one we'd just painstakingly worked out.
I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want to pick. — Isaac
Indeed. I have so far been unable to get this answer from free speech absolutists (FSAs).Things being in two different categories is insufficient to justify any two responses to them. You must show how each category justifies each response. — Isaac
Not just attempts to resolve disagreement, but any situation where people use language to accomplish anything would become trivial.But if that were the case, then all disagreement would be trivial. There'd be no reason at all to resolve it.
I don't believe they are in different categories, I'm not a FSA.It wasn't an historical question. I was asking why you believe they should be treated differently, not why other people might have come to.
Understanding that other people think differently than oneself doesn't automatically lead to caring about that.I see, so we're back to the delusion that what seems to you to be the case is actually the case. You personally have a sense of what constitutes encroaching upon other's freedoms, other people have a different sense.
Really...most people grasp theory of mind by the age of three and you're still having trouble with it. — Isaac
Heh.So you're suggesting that studying something disposes one to biases but a lay approach, what, magically removes bias? — Isaac
I don't see why a categorization like the one in the OP would be necessary or helpful. Other than in the case where one assumes one's superiority over others, and thus feels justified to unilaterally define the terms of engagement.I was thinking more of political conversations with non-philosophers out there in the wild. — Pfhorrest
I have to do you homework for you and remember what you said for you, just shows how lazy of a thinker you are. — Harry Hindu
The problem is that you believe that compromises can always be reached. — Harry Hindu
You need to give me an explanation as to what moral "truth" can be true for all in the same way that gravity is true for all. — Harry Hindu
Some things do escape those who study people professionally. — baker
Sure, you can do so as private persons (ie. when not in your professional capacity), or else, only produce qualitative case studies, which are of limited scientific value.You've given a really good list there of the limits of psychological investigation. I'm largely in agreement. You've prefaced the list rather unfortunately though. These things do not escape those of us who study people professionally. We have no lesser access to them than others. — Isaac
I don't see why a categorization like the one in the OP would be necessary or helpful. — baker
Since I don't practice that common practice, the whole classification is moot for me.It might help you see better if you realize that it is proposed in juxtaposition to the common practice of treating people as only being in groups 1 or 5. I’m advocating more nuance than that. — Pfhorrest
How would you multilaterally define the terms of engagement, since to do so one would have to first engage? — Isaac
I think that when I talk about some moral dilemma, about which non-philosophers definitely do argue - abortion, charity, ethical trade, veganism, social responsibility, children's rights, animal testing, wars (just/unjust), wealth taxes, public health...etc you see those not as differences in moral principles, but differences in how to apply the same principles (something more like fostering some balance between autonomy and social harmony which we all have a general idea of).
I can understand that (though to me it's too far to put it down to one principle - the neurological evidence is strongly against you on that one, there's at least a dozen different types of calculation which need to be accounted for), but notwithstanding... — Isaac
My point is basically that I think the split you’re seeing is not revealing a difference in moral epistemology. It’s just cultural. Things which our culture thinks of as extreme seem ideological, things our culture thinks of as normal seem ‘common sense’. — Isaac
I mean that you're presenting a model of different ways of engaging with people, based on whether they agree with you or not.I don’t even see HOW you could categorize people in advance of engaging with them, so I’m certainly not advocating that anyone somehow do that. — Pfhorrest
I don't see it this way at all.But after engaging with people, it will become clear whether their opinions are the ones you think are correct or not, and how strongly held those opinions are and for what reasons they’re held.
It’s then appropriate to engage with them differently based on those various factors.
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.