4 ms·

if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted. I see some echoes of thi

if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted. I see some echoes of this in the advice about steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about the sphere..

goodpoint 5y ago
You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate. Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  What would you consider a morally unacceptable debate? Or is that question itself morally unacceptable to engage with?
- Razengan 5y ago
  Oh man…
- abecedarius 5y ago
  "I won't debate you" is fine. "Anyone who does gets tainted by the other side's cooties" is not. There are loud people aggressively pushing that norm and trying to blur this distinction.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition? I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite. (on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    Proposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments. A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because: 1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome, 2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
    - redler 5y ago
      Sounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.
    - vraks 5y ago
      So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced. Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        No, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.
      - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
- friedman23 5y ago
  It sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs that you refuse to take a hard look at.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    It sounds like you are projecting.
    - friedman23 5y ago
      How so? I don't have a problem with my beliefs being questioned or discussed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tremon 5y ago
Here, the quote by J.S. Mill comes to the rescue: > But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they have no ground for preferring either theory. There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest" and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was denouncing ;)
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I find it extraordinary that in this day and age we're reaching levels of discourse so low level about such trivial ignorance. Really extraordinary, we're rediscussing (or re-wasting time) beliefs, truth, reality in ways I'd never think possible today.
- my_usernam3 5y ago
  > most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.
dvt 5y ago
> if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position should be done routinely to test the strength one's own arguments.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Which is why moral relativism is so degenerate.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    Elaborate, please?
zalo 5y ago
Are you kidding? If someone really has good evidence for the Earth being flat, that could potentially be one of the most important observations of all time! As the Litany of Tarski goes: “If the Earth is flat, I desire to believe the Earth is flat…” etc. (Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you’ve heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)
- rgrieselhuber 5y ago
  I have yet to hear a FE believer explain their position without them raising their voice.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    Same for "microwaves are bad" believers. They are angry people. Over what, I do not know, but I think they have a deep fear of their own ignorance and use anger to compensate. Somehow they learned at a young age the winner of an argument is perceived as correct or smart, and the way to win is to wear people down. Every conversation is arm wrestling.

goodpoint 5y ago

You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate. Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
What would you consider a morally unacceptable debate? Or is that question itself morally unacceptable to engage with?
Razengan 5y ago
Oh man…
abecedarius 5y ago
"I won't debate you" is fine. "Anyone who does gets tainted by the other side's cooties" is not. There are loud people aggressively pushing that norm and trying to blur this distinction.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition? I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite. (on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  Proposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments. A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because: 1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome, 2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
  - redler 5y ago
    Sounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.
  - vraks 5y ago
    So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced. Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      No, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.
    - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
friedman23 5y ago
It sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs that you refuse to take a hard look at.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  It sounds like you are projecting.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    How so? I don't have a problem with my beliefs being questioned or discussed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tremon 5y ago

Here, the quote by J.S. Mill comes to the rescue: > But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they have no ground for preferring either theory. There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest" and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was denouncing ;)

agumonkey 5y ago
I find it extraordinary that in this day and age we're reaching levels of discourse so low level about such trivial ignorance. Really extraordinary, we're rediscussing (or re-wasting time) beliefs, truth, reality in ways I'd never think possible today.
my_usernam3 5y ago
> most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.

dvt 5y ago

> if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position should be done routinely to test the strength one's own arguments.

newbamboo 5y ago
Which is why moral relativism is so degenerate.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Elaborate, please?

zalo 5y ago

Are you kidding? If someone really has good evidence for the Earth being flat, that could potentially be one of the most important observations of all time! As the Litany of Tarski goes: “If the Earth is flat, I desire to believe the Earth is flat…” etc. (Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you’ve heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)

rgrieselhuber 5y ago
I have yet to hear a FE believer explain their position without them raising their voice.
- cmurf 5y ago
  Same for "microwaves are bad" believers. They are angry people. Over what, I do not know, but I think they have a deep fear of their own ignorance and use anger to compensate. Somehow they learned at a young age the winner of an argument is perceived as correct or smart, and the way to win is to wear people down. Every conversation is arm wrestling.