4 ms·

Philosophical question - why is that important to know? What added value is discovered by realizing your opponent's conclusion is not based off of bad facts or

Philosophical question - why is that important to know? What added value is discovered by realizing your opponent's conclusion is not based off of bad facts or faulty reasoning, but different values?

AlexCoventry 7y ago
It makes you more persuasive. You can align your arguments to their values.
- eclipxe 7y ago
  What if they have no values/their views are not based in anything rational or rooted in fact?
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    I think the part after your slash is a different case than them having correct facts and reasoning, just with different values. In your after-slash case they are "wrong". You're looking at how to have them accept facts and correct their reasoning. The first part is interesting, but ultimately, if their conclusions were based only on facts and reasoning, their conclusions would only be limited to the area of facts, "is" statements. They would not be able to derive ought/should statements. (If you believe in Hume's Guillotine.)
refurb 7y ago
How can you fully defend/understand your own beliefs if you don't fully understand your opponents beliefs? It's pretty arrogant to assume there is only one way to look at things - your way.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  That is interesting, how does understanding your opponents beliefs make you more fully able to understand your own beliefs? I would think it possible to fully understand one's own argument about something, without understanding all possible counterarguments.
NikolaNovak 7y ago
Practical answer - how you engage is radically different. My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding. If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different. Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  Thanks. I'm also toying with the idea that it means that realizing it's about values could possibly engender greater respect for the other's conclusions. Because at least then the person isn't "wrong". Although maybe that's only true if you find their values tolerable. Otherwise I suppose the advantage is in knowing you'll have to start strategizing if the conclusions from their values are incompatible with yours. Either way it does seem valuable to know the other person's complete reasoning, just trying to quantify as many reasons why as possible.
war1025 7y ago
Because seeing the world differently is different from being malevolent. If someone is acting malevolently, then you can rationalize basically anything with regards to hurting them or their well-being. If someone just views the world differently, you will be annoyed by them, but probably not able to rationalize to yourself that they should not exist.

Philosophical question - why is that important to know? What added value is discovered by realizing your opponent's conclusion is not based off of bad facts or faulty reasoning, but different values?

AlexCoventry 7y ago

It makes you more persuasive. You can align your arguments to their values.

eclipxe 7y ago
What if they have no values/their views are not based in anything rational or rooted in fact?
- tunesmith 7y ago
  I think the part after your slash is a different case than them having correct facts and reasoning, just with different values. In your after-slash case they are "wrong". You're looking at how to have them accept facts and correct their reasoning. The first part is interesting, but ultimately, if their conclusions were based only on facts and reasoning, their conclusions would only be limited to the area of facts, "is" statements. They would not be able to derive ought/should statements. (If you believe in Hume's Guillotine.)

refurb 7y ago

How can you fully defend/understand your own beliefs if you don't fully understand your opponents beliefs? It's pretty arrogant to assume there is only one way to look at things - your way.

tunesmith 7y ago
That is interesting, how does understanding your opponents beliefs make you more fully able to understand your own beliefs? I would think it possible to fully understand one's own argument about something, without understanding all possible counterarguments.

NikolaNovak 7y ago

Practical answer - how you engage is radically different. My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding. If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different. Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.

tunesmith 7y ago
Thanks. I'm also toying with the idea that it means that realizing it's about values could possibly engender greater respect for the other's conclusions. Because at least then the person isn't "wrong". Although maybe that's only true if you find their values tolerable. Otherwise I suppose the advantage is in knowing you'll have to start strategizing if the conclusions from their values are incompatible with yours. Either way it does seem valuable to know the other person's complete reasoning, just trying to quantify as many reasons why as possible.

war1025 7y ago

Because seeing the world differently is different from being malevolent. If someone is acting malevolently, then you can rationalize basically anything with regards to hurting them or their well-being. If someone just views the world differently, you will be annoyed by them, but probably not able to rationalize to yourself that they should not exist.