4 ms·

"The whole thing is people need to surround themselves with a good number of people they disagree with on things." I agree with this sentiment. I think, howeve

"The whole thing is people need to surround themselves with a good number of people they disagree with on things." I agree with this sentiment. I think, however, a more fundamental problem lies with peoples' attitude toward their own ideas and towards the ideas of others. People have an apparently irresistible tendency to moralize; to consider their ideas as "good" and contrary ones as "bad". Once the moralizing starts, reasonable discussion becomes difficult if not impossible. Disagreements quickly devolve into the two sides calling each other evil. Given this I would rephrase your statement as, people need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences rather than moral truths, genuine discussion becomes possible. In your example of vegetarianism, consider the different response one might get if one says, "I prefer to avoid eating meat" versus "Eating meat is wrong". The first opens up the possibility for mutual understanding, the second is sure to launch a flamewar.

yesenadam 8y ago
people need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences... Well, that sure sounds like 'moralizing' to me, and I don't think you realize it. If you don't care much about anything, well ok. But that's no virtue. It sounds close to the relativism that talks of "true for me" and "true for you". For example, I think we have no right to kill and eat animals, much less subject them to horrific lives. (So I'm vegan) This to me isn't a 'personal preference' or 'opinion'. It is a major moral and ethical issue, much like, say, slavery was/is. People disgusted by slavery didn't say it was 'simply their personal preference' not to own slaves, that it was merely their 'opinion' that slavery was wrong. That would have been ludicrous. We'd still have slavery if people had talked like that. And no doubt you had pro-slavery people in the 19th C giving the same lofty advice: "People need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences rather than moral truths, genuine discussion becomes possible..."
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. There are millions of people, and nations, that still believe as a moral absolute that a person ought be killed for behaviors such as apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy, atheism, sorcery, adultery, and so on. And of course these individuals cannot be logically moved from their position since they simply double down on their moral self assuredness. Ultimately, moral absolutes are best left to religion, and religion is best left to mythology. --- Even for things like slavery, most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present. This [1] article from WaPo states some 30 million today are enslaved -- more than at any other time in history. It's certainly sensationalized, but only in magnitude - not reality. The more important takeaway from the article is the locations of where slavery is most prominent today. And it's in countries that failed to economically and technologically evolve. Something often ignored in favor of softer factors for the ending of slavery is is this [2]. That extensively sourced article goes into the price of a slave in the US in the mid 19th century. In price terms relative to how much each individual earned per year, a slave would cost more than $200,000 in modern day dollars -- a single slave cost as much as a house did. And that's before you get into housing, feeding, and ensuring the good health of your slave. You'll find abolitionists moralistically arguing for literally thousands of years, and even 'Lincolns' dating back to as early as 7AD (China in that case). The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. And an even more serendipitous occurrence is that this was happening at the very time that the industrial revolution was driving urbanization creating a massive pool of low wage labor. And on top of this all rising productivity also meant that paying somebody a wage was no longer as burdensome a cost to bear. These factors are arguably what genuinely meant slavery in the United States was finally brought to an effective end. And similarly the reasons it continues to 'thrive' in other areas today is not for lack of moralistic arguments, or even laws against it, but simply because of the economic factors are, for various reasons, not yet in play. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17... [2] - https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
Snowe 8y ago
Aside from a moral basis for disagreement, a great number of people do not seem to be able to argue logically, or even civilly. That's nothing new, but I think the ease with which people can get a dose of outrage or confirmation is taking it to another level. If people are being encouraged or even subtly taught to become emotionally aroused faster, logical thinking and mutual understanding becomes harder to reach. It seems to me, more important than ever, that critical thinking needs to be a good part of the education curriculum.

yesenadam 8y ago

people need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences... Well, that sure sounds like 'moralizing' to me, and I don't think you realize it. If you don't care much about anything, well ok. But that's no virtue. It sounds close to the relativism that talks of "true for me" and "true for you". For example, I think we have no right to kill and eat animals, much less subject them to horrific lives. (So I'm vegan) This to me isn't a 'personal preference' or 'opinion'. It is a major moral and ethical issue, much like, say, slavery was/is. People disgusted by slavery didn't say it was 'simply their personal preference' not to own slaves, that it was merely their 'opinion' that slavery was wrong. That would have been ludicrous. We'd still have slavery if people had talked like that. And no doubt you had pro-slavery people in the 19th C giving the same lofty advice: "People need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences rather than moral truths, genuine discussion becomes possible..."

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. There are millions of people, and nations, that still believe as a moral absolute that a person ought be killed for behaviors such as apostasy, homosexuality, blasphemy, atheism, sorcery, adultery, and so on. And of course these individuals cannot be logically moved from their position since they simply double down on their moral self assuredness. Ultimately, moral absolutes are best left to religion, and religion is best left to mythology. --- Even for things like slavery, most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present. This [1] article from WaPo states some 30 million today are enslaved -- more than at any other time in history. It's certainly sensationalized, but only in magnitude - not reality. The more important takeaway from the article is the locations of where slavery is most prominent today. And it's in countries that failed to economically and technologically evolve. Something often ignored in favor of softer factors for the ending of slavery is is this [2]. That extensively sourced article goes into the price of a slave in the US in the mid 19th century. In price terms relative to how much each individual earned per year, a slave would cost more than $200,000 in modern day dollars -- a single slave cost as much as a house did. And that's before you get into housing, feeding, and ensuring the good health of your slave. You'll find abolitionists moralistically arguing for literally thousands of years, and even 'Lincolns' dating back to as early as 7AD (China in that case). The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical. And an even more serendipitous occurrence is that this was happening at the very time that the industrial revolution was driving urbanization creating a massive pool of low wage labor. And on top of this all rising productivity also meant that paying somebody a wage was no longer as burdensome a cost to bear. These factors are arguably what genuinely meant slavery in the United States was finally brought to an effective end. And similarly the reasons it continues to 'thrive' in other areas today is not for lack of moralistic arguments, or even laws against it, but simply because of the economic factors are, for various reasons, not yet in play. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17... [2] - https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Snowe 8y ago

Aside from a moral basis for disagreement, a great number of people do not seem to be able to argue logically, or even civilly. That's nothing new, but I think the ease with which people can get a dose of outrage or confirmation is taking it to another level. If people are being encouraged or even subtly taught to become emotionally aroused faster, logical thinking and mutual understanding becomes harder to reach. It seems to me, more important than ever, that critical thinking needs to be a good part of the education curriculum.