3 ms·
> "If you only understood the complex effects of the policy, you would agree" is not a valid counter-argument to somehow who thinks it has immoral underpinnings
by baddox 12y ago
> "If you only understood the complex effects of the policy, you would agree" is not a valid counter-argument to somehow who thinks it has immoral underpinnings, because you are asking that person to basically cave in to the idea that the end justifies the means: "If only your thinking wasn't clouded by a naive illusion of understanding, you would see that desirable ends are achieved, and therefore you would accept the means."
Doesn't that show the fundamental weakness of moral arguments? If Bob opposes a policy on moral grounds, but you convince Bob that the consequences of the policy would be overwhelmingly good by both of our standards (e.g. a reduction in crime or poverty), wouldn't you expect Bob to change his opinion about the policy (and perhaps concoct some moral justification)?
I find that most people who hold a moral position also have (what they believe are) strong arguments for why the consequences of breaking that moral position will be bad. And yet, most of them are not consequentialists, and are very resistant to consequentialism. Doesn't that seem too convenient?
- kazinator 12y agoRather, I think the problem is that some moralists have odd or outright bad morals. What I mean by bad morals is ones that have to do with controlling aspects of other people's lives that don't affect others. For example, say, opposition to two people of the same sex being married, which is purely their business. One justification is that it takes away from the "sanctity" of marriage, which somehow takes something away from the marriage of some opposite-sex couple who don't even know those two men. Another example is appeals to traditions. Doing something is right because it's "always" been done that way. On a related note, some moralists simply oppose change as a kind of moral. Change is bad. Lack of change is good! Anything that forces me to make an effort and learn something new or adjust is immoral; things staying the same is moral.
- kbutler 12y agoHow direct or concentrated an "affect others" criteria do you require? With US tax law, taxpayers do subsidize all married filing jointly couples. If you believe that the aggregate actions of others will cause billions of dollars of harm and millions of deaths, should you seek to prevent those actions? If so, I expect you're opposed to smoking, gun ownership, drug use, alcohol consumption, and non-monogamous sex. It's really easy to dismiss harms or rights you don't agree with. If you think a fetus could not possibly have rights until birth, allowing abortion is easy. If you think an unborn child has rights, the child's death weighs strongly against potential harm to the mother. > some moralists simply oppose change Any examples? Everyone I've encountered wants some change, even if it's "back to how it was" in many areas.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago>controlling aspects of other people's lives that don't affect others[...]opposition to two people of the same sex being married, which is purely their business. It is blowing my mind that you can write this immediately following a massive national controversy over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the ability of religious businesses to decline service to same-sex marriages. >some moralists simply oppose change as a kind of moral. Conservatives argue that a working society is an accumulation of attributes that have stood the test of time and reached a stable equilibrium with each other, and that making even small changes have to be carefully examined because small changes can have large repercussions. There are congenital flaws in conservative thinking with regard to how and when you recognize change is finally needed, but the principle is a lot more sane than the other extreme.
- jmnicolas 12y agoSince when being against same sex marriage is political extremism ? I'm under the impression that for liberals, everything that is against their views is extremism ...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- xrange 12y ago"...This could explain why well-educated, intelligent people, all across the political spectrum, so often make the unspoken assumption that good intentions and well-crafted words are sufficient for making good public policy" http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-are-we-doing-when-we-teach-fiction.html http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-are-we-doing-when-w...
- ptaipale 12y agoThank you, that was a gem. "But that's the assumption being made whenever anyone argues in favor of a law by referring to the righteous aspirations underlying it, without contemplating whether the process initiated by the text of the law could lead to results that are at odds with those aspirations." Good intentions, sometimes quite counter-productive end results.