4 ms·

Why isn't it a productive argument? This is a question about what goals society should optimize towards. There's no amount of objective measurements that can

Why isn't it a productive argument? This is a question about what goals society should optimize towards. There's no amount of objective measurements that can determine the relative worth of cheaper policing compared with decreased privacy. The only way for such an argument to proceed is to convince enough people that such a trade results in a world not being how it is supposed to be. TL;DR: This argument lies on the "ought" side of Hume's is-ought distinction [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

catlifeonmars 5y ago
I wasn’t familiar with the is-ought problem, thanks! I think in this case, I was commenting on the parents presumption that the their “ought” was a universally shared (or even widely shared) axiom. In that sense stating one’s belief without defending it is not really an argument at all (in that it’s not persuasive), and therefore (in my opinion) not as productive as starting from a more universally held common ground.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  No problem, and I'm glad that it helped! It's a useful distinction for determining what type of arguments will be useful to make. If two people agree on goals, but differ on the ways to reach those goals, then "is" arguments are useful. If two people disagree on goals, then there isn't yet any common ground on which to have that conversation, and the first step is to have an "ought" conversation to find common ground. (This is also simplifying a bit, as there are cases where differing goals can have the same next steps. An apolitical example would be a temporary alliance in a board game, where you and I team up to stop a third player from winning. Our long-term goals differ, as each of us wants to win for ourselves, but our short-term goals align at stopping the third player.)

catlifeonmars 5y ago

I wasn’t familiar with the is-ought problem, thanks! I think in this case, I was commenting on the parents presumption that the their “ought” was a universally shared (or even widely shared) axiom. In that sense stating one’s belief without defending it is not really an argument at all (in that it’s not persuasive), and therefore (in my opinion) not as productive as starting from a more universally held common ground.

MereInterest 5y ago
No problem, and I'm glad that it helped! It's a useful distinction for determining what type of arguments will be useful to make. If two people agree on goals, but differ on the ways to reach those goals, then "is" arguments are useful. If two people disagree on goals, then there isn't yet any common ground on which to have that conversation, and the first step is to have an "ought" conversation to find common ground. (This is also simplifying a bit, as there are cases where differing goals can have the same next steps. An apolitical example would be a temporary alliance in a board game, where you and I team up to stop a third player from winning. Our long-term goals differ, as each of us wants to win for ourselves, but our short-term goals align at stopping the third player.)