6 ms·
This is an equivocation. There's such a thing as an is/ought distinction. The fact that there might be some rational description of morally abhorrent behavior d
by tpeo 9y ago
This is an equivocation. There's such a thing as an is/ought distinction. The fact that there might be some rational description of morally abhorrent behavior doesn't lead to the conclusion that that behavior is acceptable. Understanding doesn't mean accepting. Darwinism, for instance, doesn't imply Social Darwinism. Neither do theories of criminal behavior attempt to legitimize crime.
And if anything, anyone who's appalled by these things should actually be interested in studying the conditions under which these things might happen, or under which they might be beneficial, so as to insure that these conditions are never met.
- nl 9y agoAnd if anything, anyone who's appalled by these things should actually be interested in studying the conditions under which these things might happen I agree with this very strongly. I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas. It's interesting. I used to believe that abhorrent ideas should be confronted. But I'm not longer convinced - it seems to me that attention is adequate in many cases to allow abhorrent ideas to spread.
- tpeo 9y ago>I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas Besides the difficulty of working alone, how can anyone challenge something they aren't willing to talk about? If anything is to be done about it, then people will have to start talking eventually, even if only for the purpose of political coordination. I get that there's the issue of trying to present anything to an uninterested or uneducated audience in a way that they won't get the wrong idea. But assuming beforehand that they will get the wrong idea regardless of what you might do is just assuming failure. If everyone thought this way, nothing would ever be done: slavery, serfdom and child-labor wouldn't ever have ended. Besides, ideas don't spread like that. Specially morally abhorrent ideas, because being "morally abhorrent" usually implies being politically unfeasible. Even the most terrible regimes tried to whitewash themselves because they knew what they were doing wouldn't fly with the populace.
- Chris2048 9y ago> I'm not sure if (or why) this leads to the requirement to have a rational discussion with proponents of abhorrent ideas. Who decides what is abhorrent? In what sense? Rational, yet undesirable? > abhorrent ideas should be confronted This is an entirely different think. A constructive (cooperative), rational discussion is different from an adversarial debate. > to allow abhorrent ideas to spread Again, who decides which ideas are to be silenced? And without discussion, in this case. You are essentially advocating restricting individual choice, by restricting available information; pushing individuals towards the "correct" viewpoint by banning advocacy of any other. The US, in particular, and many other western countries, were founded on opposition to this philosophy.
- nl 9y agoI'm reluctant to get drawn into a discussion of who decides what ideas are abhorrent because it's a pretty big topic on its own. BUT, I do think (hope?) we can agree that there are some ideas that are abhorrent. I use the example of race-based slavery above. Why should I have a rational discussions about the economic benefits of race-based slavery? The cost/benefit analysis just doesn't seem to make sense - the cost is increased visibility of the arguments for race based slavery, and I'm unsure what possible benefits there are.
- Chris2048 9y agoI'll be honest - I think your example is contrived and/or a strawman, because you chose a "topic" that already seems to have assumed its conclusion e.g Can we have a "rational discussion" on "The benefit that 2 + 2 = 5"? > Why should I have a rational discussions.. I think the question here is whether you can censor other people who want to have that discussion, not whether they can force you to participate. > I'm unsure what possible benefits there are But you want to veto the topic anyway? It sounds like you want to win the game without playing. To be considered "right" you must bear the burden of the argument.
- nl 9y agoSo which on my list isn't contrived? I'd note that I'm asking question, and I keep getting "we don't need to discuss that" responses.
- FeepingCreature 9y agoThe assumption of the right to decide what idea should be permitted to spread is an idea that's abhorrent to me. How can I combat it?