3 ms·

What does that have to do with opinions?

• 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  In your own words: > The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions. When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle. Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.
  • TimTheTinker 5y ago
    I wasn't specific enough in what I said. To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions. I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.
    • 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      Yea, identity politics may very well end up going down in history as a social engineering failure of the left based in a misunderstanding of ethics and science. Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.