4 ms·

There is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.

• refurb 11y ago
  Can you give an example? It seems like the biggest problem with economics, for example, is that no one can say for sure what the outcome would be. Spending more money during a recession, for example, works only some of the time.
• TulliusCicero 11y ago
  They are not, in fact 'objectively' better, because the degree to which you prioritize each of those things differs based on each person's values. Take welfare, for instance. Social welfare programs help the vulnerable, and undoubtedly some non-zero percentage of people are taking advantage of said programs wrongly. In the US, people who are liberal are more interested in the former, and people who are conservative are more interested in the latter. This is a chief reason why one group is for it and the other is against it. It's not that liberals don't think welfare fraud exists at all, they just don't think it's a big problem compared to the good such programs do. And it's not that conservatives don't think such programs do help some deserving poor people, they just hate the thought of some of their tax money going to someone mooching off the system.
  • aidos 11y ago
    I'd hope that most conservatives don't attach that justification to welfare cuts. You effectively said that they would be happy to punish the vulnerable to ensure that those taking advantage of the system would also be punished. I Am Not A Conservative, but I'm fairly sure most of them would be horrified with that categorisation. I didn't downvote you, I do agree that you can't just say one or other thing is objectivley better. I think your example missed the mark though.
  • sjtrny 11y ago
    Increasing welfare will likely improve the lives of those who are using it, including those who are taking advantage of it. You did not disprove my point at all.
• coldtea 11y ago
  They are objectively better only if you agree 1) on the relative importance of those aspects, and 2) on how to measure success. E.g. regarding to health. One approach (e.g. state funded, guaranteed health coverage for all) might give better overall health statistics for the whole population, even eradicating certain classes of diceases, etc. But some people could still think of it as bad, because they don't just want "better health" for everybody, but better health for those that can afford it, and consider the others lazy and cheaters that deserve to not have health coverage. Now, I'm on the first camp, but this is an illustrative example of how measuring results is not some kind of solution that ends the political debate.
  • sjtrny 11y ago
    > But some people could still think of it as bad That's great. They can continue to think that. But overall improved health stats is an objectively better position. I am aware that it doesn't end the debate, for precisely the reason discussed in the linked article: people are irrational.