Reasonable people may disagree about ... | INFJ Forum

Reasonable people may disagree about ...

uuu

Donor
Jan 31, 2011
1,132
1,401
777
MBTI
I
In my lifetime, in my cultural environs, I have seen certain political issues shift from "negotiable" to "nonnegotiable." I guess the most famous example is gay marriage. This used to be something high schoolers could pick sides on in debate club; now, the very idea of being opposed to gay rights is appalling. Gay marriage is not an issue that reasonable people will disagree about, because we have come to recognize as a society that being gay is just not wrong in any objective sense.

Of course, many people work very hard to couch all of their political beliefs in this kind of absolutist language. "If you oppose free school lunches, it's because you're racist" and stuff. Indeed, this is a very tempting rhetorical move. If you admit that reasonable people may disagree about your political beliefs, then you are essentially admitting that your favoring one side is just a matter of preference, not something grounded in firm and eternal principles like justice and fairness. By asserting that your view is the only reasonable view, you excuse yourself from having to defend it in the first place.

There are hidden dangers in chaining too many of your beliefs to universal moral axioms. For one thing, you have to keep your axioms straight: It is easy for a critic to come along and use your own principles against you, or show that your axioms, taken to a logical extreme, would produce some horrible injustice. For another, if you spend too much time grabbing onto beliefs based on their proximity to your basic moral axioms, you might start to get sloppy, and forget how the actual derivation of the belief follows from the principles. In other words, you have beliefs that are ostensibly grounded in basic principles, but in actuality, the basic principles are merely phantoms and your so-called beliefs are actually just strident guesses.

My question is, do you have any political beliefs that you are both very firm in, but also acknowledge that there is room for disagreement? What are they? If you believe in something firmly but do not have an inviolable moral principle at the root of it, what makes you so sure that you have the right answer?
 
Last edited:
There are things I'd be willing to hear somebody's side on while still feeling that their beliefs didn't have a place in our world. Would that be room for disagreement?

In practice I prefer not debating everything. It's energy intensive, doesn't often work for me, and there's not enough time.

an inviolable moral principle at the root of it
How can you determine what an inviolable moral principle is?
My apologies for what may be an obvious question. I'm not well-studied in philosophy.

. If you admit that reasonable people may disagree about your political beliefs, then you are essentially admitting that your favoring one side is just a matter of preference, not something grounded in firm and eternal principles like justice and fairness.
The way this is proposed feels like a false assertion to me. Different beliefs could be established through whatever life experiences & information that each limited perspective gives, allowing for two reasonable people to come to different conclusions without it being just a matter of preference.
Though that preference sways politics seems true.
 
I don't care for "moral" positions which are actually just sympathetic positions. The barrage of false equivalencies being churned out by woke culture just seems idiotic. Ultimately, social progressiveness only seems to "achieve" semantic changes which don't really mean anything. For example, the words: marriage, man, woman, violence, agression, etc are all just more ambiguous, and ultimately un-informative. It's a massive waste of everyone's time.
 
@ultrauber I don’t believe that in politics there can be a right answer. Each political perspective brings its own bundle of benefits and disadvantages - and even these are a matter of opinion. Each of them is inevitably right in some sense and wrong in another sense.

What seems self evident to me is that all we people have both good and evil woven into our being. Any political system that fails to encompass and address both of these aspects is a waste of time and will end up corrupted - and people will suffer from the consequences.

If I had to choose I’d pick slap band in the middle between Fe and Fi. I want constraints that’s allow us all to live together in prosperity and happiness while maximising the amount if individual freedom. I believe very strongly that the individual is paramount - society is a convenient fiction and only each of us people individually is real and conscious and autonomous. We need society to enable our greatest freedom but no society exceeds the miracle of our precious individuality.
 
I don’t believe that in politics there can be a right answer. Each political perspective brings its own bundle of benefits and disadvantages - and even these are a matter of opinion. Each of them is inevitably right in some sense and wrong in another sense.

This.

My question is, do you have any political beliefs that you are both very firm in, but also acknowledge that there is room for disagreement? What are they? If you believe in something firmly but do not have an inviolable moral principle at the root of it, what makes you so sure that you have the right answer?

Q1) Yes. Q2) I think all of them. Q3) I'm not sure about any of my answers. I'm making my best guesses moment-to-moment as I fumble through this world. I'm actually not a believer in inviolable moral principle, but I also wouldn't be surprised if something came up that made me think it so.
 
My best wishes for your evening.
Many thanks!

We are staying near my younger son at the moment. Our rental cottage is really nice with an unexpectedly large garden which is where I’m sitting. I’ve just had two beers which was good and it’s trying to rain which is lovely but it’s wetting my iPhone lol
 
Many thanks!

We are staying near my younger son at the moment. Our rental cottage is really nice with an unexpectedly large garden which is where I’m sitting. I’ve just had two beers which was good and it’s trying to rain which is lovely but it’s wetting my iPhone lol
You're an unexpectedly large garden <3
Spending time with family is always good and yes I feel your appreciation for the rain, even if your iPhone doesn't. It's looking like that over here as well.
 
@ultrauber I don’t believe that in politics there can be a right answer. Each political perspective brings its own bundle of benefits and disadvantages - and even these are a matter of opinion. Each of them is inevitably right in some sense and wrong in another sense.

What seems self evident to me is that all we people have both good and evil woven into our being. Any political system that fails to encompass and address both of these aspects is a waste of time and will end up corrupted - and people will suffer from the consequences.

If I had to choose I’d pick slap band in the middle between Fe and Fi. I want constraints that’s allow us all to live together in prosperity and happiness while maximising the amount if individual freedom. I believe very strongly that the individual is paramount - society is a convenient fiction and only each of us people individually is real and conscious and autonomous. We need society to enable our greatest freedom but no society exceeds the miracle of our precious individuality.

This resonates with me so much. So eloquently put, as well!

The ideas of a halfway point between Fe and Fi being aimed for in politics as well as the need to account for the dark and light in all individuals is profound, important, and unfortunately unusual.
 
Never go full space coyote.
To err is human, to laugh is divine.
Weapons are my religion.
 
What else is there to say that some decades back seen it coming that one day it will all fireball as there is too many competing special interests and privileges between different groups seeking to get their own slice of pie while all ultimately will have nothing in the end. The worst part is observing from the sidelines clearly seeing all this behave exactly like a cult where any criticism of said ideologies is met with being canceled.
 
I want constraints that’s allow us all to live together in prosperity and happiness while maximising the amount if individual freedom. I believe very strongly that the individual is paramount - society is a convenient fiction and only each of us people individually is real and conscious and autonomous. We need society to enable our greatest freedom but no society exceeds the miracle of our precious individuality.

bcLVvhr.jpg


Let the tears in my eyes wash away
the illusions which cloud my vision,
so I may clearly see the breaking
of the dawn, and so know the coming
of a new day.

QWOgqGg.gif

Ian
 
Gay marriage is not an issue that reasonable people will disagree about, because we have come to recognize as a society that being gay is just not wrong in any objective sense.
Reasonable by what standard? Objective based on what? As far as I can tell, recency bias and chronological snobbery. And that's how most of post-modern morality is characterized—by continual loosening of boundaries and obfuscation of terms to appease the most vocal activists. I don't see anything reasonable about bastardization of a sacred institution in the name of inclusivity; a word that increasingly makes me cringe.

I can allow for exceptions in abortion for example, because some circumstances are more complicated than others. But that doesn't change the fact that most of current demand for legislation seems to be motivated by a desire to make a hedge against negative consequences of rampant hedonism and "having fun". In some of my recent exchanges, I've been explicitly told that "either you get along or you get left behind", which underlines the sentiment of much of the current generation. There is no objective basis for morality here except for going where the wind blows. I suppose that in 100 years when the next cultural revolution comes and we start a new social experiment, we will all be proven wrong once again. Because what is right is only right on Mondays, not on Tuesdays.
 
I suppose that in 100 years when the next cultural revolution comes and we start a new social experiment, we will all be proven wrong once again.
Except for me. I will always be a sinner.

That being said I feel ultrauber wasn't defending nor criticizing the acceptance of gay marriage, but using it as an example of how politicized society has been divided into 'hyper-reasonable enclaves standing against the onslaught of an unreasonable world'.
 
That being said I feel ultrauber wasn't defending nor criticizing the acceptance of gay marriage, but using it as an example of how politicized society has been divided into 'hyper-reasonable enclaves standing against the onslaught of an unreasonable world'.
Just imagine I'm an old man yelling at clouds then.

Except for me. I will always be a sinner.
Why? What's the benefit?
 
Just imagine I'm an old man yelling at clouds then.
imagines
...you know, I can see it. We should all hope to live long enough, haha

Why? What's the benefit?
You say that like I have a choice. I'm only human. Every generation and moral model will find fault within me somewhere, including myself.
It doesn't mean not to try - trying is the barest essence of good, I believe.
 
How can you determine what an inviolable moral principle is?

You don't: the basic moral principles are things that we assert are true at the outset, and then we derive our political view from these. Moral principles are supposed to be self-evident, and they are not the subject of political debate; rather, it is how to apply the principles and make them into policy where there is room for reasonable people to disagree.

For example, basically everyone agrees in the principle of freedom of expression. But does this freedom include the right to have a nightcore dance party at 2am on a weeknight in an apartment building with thin walls? What about on Saturday? What if the walls are thick? What if the attendees wear headphones? We can generate an infinite number of hypothetical scenarios about which reasonable people may disagree.

I don't care for "moral" positions which are actually just sympathetic positions. The barrage of false equivalencies being churned out by woke culture just seems idiotic. Ultimately, social progressiveness only seems to "achieve" semantic changes which don't really mean anything. For example, the words: marriage, man, woman, violence, agression, etc are all just more ambiguous, and ultimately un-informative. It's a massive waste of everyone's time.

Yeah, I relate to this sentiment. But the baffling thing is that there are cases in which this kind of semantic warfare have achieved political goals that I strongly agree with—see gay marriage, which for some time was going to be called civil unions to appease the evangelicals. Do the ends justify the means? Probably not, right? But in this arms race we have where everyone tries to reach for a more ultimate ideological keystone to pin their beliefs on, it's not very sexy to say "I believe in free school lunches because my gut says it's what's right" (pun intended) when you can say "racism" instead.

@ultrauber I don’t believe that in politics there can be a right answer. Each political perspective brings its own bundle of benefits and disadvantages - and even these are a matter of opinion. Each of them is inevitably right in some sense and wrong in another sense.
I agree. In fact, my question was motivated by thinking about what defines politics as opposed to law or government or psychology. A tentative answer I came up with was, "Politics is the set of issues that reasonable people are allowed to disagree about."

The problem with this definition is that it is somewhat circular: As I argued in the OP, there is broad disagreement when it comes to which issues are a valid subject of political debate or not. If you believe, as most do, that divorce is a human right, then a religious conservative who comes along is only "right" in a religious—and therefore not political—sense.

Q1) Yes. Q2) I think all of them. Q3) I'm not sure about any of my answers. I'm making my best guesses moment-to-moment as I fumble through this world. I'm actually not a believer in inviolable moral principle, but I also wouldn't be surprised if something came up that made me think it so.

Your answers to Q1 (yes, you have political beliefs that you are firm in) and Q3 ("I'm not sure about any of my answers") seem to contradict each other. If you are not sure about any of your answers, then in what sense do you consider your beliefs "firm"?
 
You say that like I have a choice. I'm only human. Every generation and moral model will find fault within me somewhere, including myself.
It doesn't mean not to try - trying is the barest essence of good, I believe.
Okay, fine. Being a sinner is a position of everyone, but the way you put it is like a resignation. Having a virtue is ultimately having a responsibility, and that's not nothing. It might even be everything.
 
Having a virtue is ultimately having a responsibility, and that's not nothing. It might even be everything.

What if my virtue is being mayor of ClownTown:m058:
 
If you are not sure about any of your answers, then in what sense do you consider your beliefs "firm"?

I have things that I feel aligned with and are stable enough to stand on, but not anything I could or would want to argue is absolutely right.