> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed
Well, yes there is.
In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.)
There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress.
Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others.
Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer.
The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex.
---
One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument.
Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with.
Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first.
There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions.
---
Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to.
People don't decide anything big in the moment.
They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.
---
I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!
No, I disagree. Not all differences need resolving. Mature adults should learn to respect those differences. It doesn’t mean you have to change your worldview to get along. This is not about how tight or loose your convictions are, but rather how much empathy and grace you’re willing to grant to others. I can vehemently disagree with you while also seeking to understand and love you. Mischaracterizing strong and, yes, even non-negotiable convictions as “hate” or “division” is what keeps us divided.
> And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.
I’m not actually so sure that we disagree as much as I originally said. A better way for me to phrase it would have been: there is nothing wrong with certain unswayable convictions. But others can be very problematic.
That said, the point I want to make more is that both of these exist whether we like it or not. So rather than saying there’s no place for those strong convictions I disagree with, it is better to understand and empathize than to debate. That doesn’t mean changing my convictions necessarily. But it does mean I should treat others well regardless of how I think of them. This is the true meaning of “love thy neighbor”. And It is a shame more people who quote such scriptures don’t exercise them.
Even if everyone was flexible, there would be unresolved differences.
So I 100% agree with general (reciprocated) respect.
Strongman argument style here and I agree. If you argue with enough people you will be changed. If you keep arguing you will develop hardened identity around these positions or fold into humility. Only politicians shape their views inside a box. At that point one chose power over progress. They learned power can be leveraged far sooner than wisdom can be applied.
That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
This reminds me of the Heinz Dilemma [0]. Ideally you want neither person A's rigid social/legal conformity in the face of death, not person B's vague wishy-washy convictions that change each time, but some higher set of ideals. Ones that accept cheating may sometimes be justified but only when the stakes are something really important like a human life, and only when cheating doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.
If person A can't accept or understand that a human life overrides lesser considerations, then no, I don't put my trust in them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
The older I get the more I hear the exact opposite of what people say when they claim anything absolute about themselves. It's working out well.
"I'm an empath." "I don't like drama." "I never cheat people." "I value honesty."
So, what you are saying is that you found the fountain of youth and are getting younger?
> That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?
Whut?
Surely it would also depend on the situation, and the relevance and reasoning behind B's view.
Are we in preschool with children? Then probably A is right.
But if B is a teacher and explains that the kids love a game in which they all rampantly cheat, and the teacher has given up because they are having an absolute blast breaking the rules and trying to trick each other? I hope you would change your mind too.
Are we talking about an undercover agent in a dangerous country, attempting to get a critical component from a drunk bioweapons scientist, at a card table in a casino?
These are humorous examples, but real world versions are not hard to come by.
Principles that have few or no exceptions tend to be very narrow in scope. Like don't preemptively launch world ending nukes during a stable peacetime.
The sensible approach is have the best principles you can, be willing to improve them, and apply them with care and situational flexibility.
Principles are maps, not the actual moral territory.
Principles are wisdom, not an algorithm.
I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in.
The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!
Someone might answer, "well, fine. I don't cheat or lie unless I'm in extraordinary circumstances." That's fine, they've let go of dogmatism then, now the interesting conversation starts of where the line is, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. That's a very interesting conversation I believe.
> There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!
I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.
> You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.
The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.
> The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.
What the universe does or doesn't respect has no bearing on what is or is not right / good.
Are you role playing in a fictional world? Where you can make up whatever ideals you want, and make them happen. Then I am for nobody ever suffering injustice.
That would be good and right, indeed.
Or, making actual choices in reality? Where there are limits to what we can do, but making hard choices well has positive impact.
I am speaking to the latter.
> Or, making actual choices in reality? Where there are limits to what we can do, but making hard choices well has positive impact.
Impact is irrelevant in Kantian ethics, deontological ethics [1] and virtue ethics [2]. A choice is good and right because it the nature of the choice itself in deontology, or because of how it defines one character in virtue ethics, not because of what effects it may or may not have on the world.
Every novice approaching ethics naively assumes a framework of consequentialism [3], where every choice is judged by its consequences, but this framework is deeply problematic and we have literal proofs that not all ethic theories can be reformulated in terms of consequences [4].
The original post I replied to also naively assumed a consequentialist framing, and I replied that this framing is not universal and so his conclusion does not follow. You can continue to double down on "it's obvious that consequences matter for ethical choices", but that doesn't make it true, and thus, it does not support the original argument.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
[4] https://philarchive.org/rec/BROCT
> Impact is irrelevant in Kantian ethics
From an arm chair perspective, this is a wonderful shortcut isn't it! Roughly, treat everyone how we would want to be treated - or some other limited formulation, with no horizon of thought about downstream impact past that.
Presumably, inflexible pacifism would get a sympathetic response from Kantians.
A kind of intellectual purity, at the relative cost to others' lives.
Interesting as an idea. Not so great for actual humans.
What exactly is the imagined benefit, that outweighs the well being of others and ourselves? A circular form of philosophical purity? A view that is better because it deems itself better?
EDIT: Just saw this:
> Not unless you can present some proof of this. Your implicit assumption that we should care about outcomes over principles has its own set of moral failures, like the repugnant conclusion.
Well, most people start by caring about other people and themselves. Not as an assumption but as a real status.
Doing so has a particularly interesting and meaningful consequence. By prioritizing better results for human beings, positive impact can better produce more positive impact. Creating a positive spiral where benefits of the ethics of prioritizing impact compound, and compound.
So for those that care about our fellow beings, and nontrivial non-limiting implications of choices, there is solid ground for ethics. Nothing arbitrary or foundationally circular.
Need to make up assumptions.
In contrast, what is the assumption or principle that values principles over people. What is the actual point? How is that deemed better than prioritizing a better world. How is that better or richer than ethics that achieve a higher bar, by continually re-incorporating, navigating and producing an ever more complex enabling future?
I gave you all of the links you need to read if you want to know more. Suffice it to say that all you're describing is what you care about, which is about as logically compelling an argument about what is good as telling me what deity you believe in. Your random foray into philosophy is not going to solve 3,000 years of ethical debates in a simple quip.
You seem to be completely at sea here, for all your knowledge.
Caring about oneself and others' welfare is a direct result of being creatures that must make choices to survive. The compounding positive sums of increasing cooperative behavior are not arbitrary. They pay for themselves, many many times over.
Thus, practical virtue appears naturally, and persists, and grows, regardless of what you want to call it, or alternatives that anyone comes up with.
If you are going to argue about/against that practical impact, at least acknowledge practical virtue has a very special status.
Or you are arguing from (real or posed) ignorance.
The burden us on you, if you want to claim this practical progression should be superseded.
Without that, an appeal to impractical principles over practical good, is very much in the vein of "telling me what deity you believe in".
What "good" is "good" that doesn't reciprocally maximize "good" going forward.
So far your comments lack any grounding beyond itself. Perverse "purity". That relegates virtue to an hermetic aesthetic or OCD tick.
Philosophy has spent 3000 years trying to organize humans well and has apparently failed to solve that problem.
Reframing that reality as "actually it doesn't matter what the consequence is as long as we followed our values to the letter!" is convenient, but in modern terminology, a cope.
I read your links and was already aware of deontology anyway but it was a nice refresher. Yup, you're right, we're describing what we care about! And in doing so we represent the majority of human thinking - maybe not the human thinking that gets written down, but nonetheless.
Why should people care to convince dusty academics what is right and wrong using logical systems and proofs when the dusty academic has lost the ethical debate immediately in the eyes of most when he admits that according to his ethical system, lying to prevent Anne Frank is wrong? This is instinctively wrong to most people, so, why should we care? Rigid logic is worthless when people are looking for something else, and rigid logic alone isn't enough to build a society.
I feel like you got to deontology and stopped. I've never actually met someone who studies ethics who got to deontology and didn't later end up with emergency exit modes, such as the Anne frank scenario. Using ethics to live a virtuous life is well and good, but Nazis don't do that, and you won't convince them using deontology to not round people up. You don't have to go all the way the other way and make "ends justify the means" arguments. Just allow yourself the flexibility to say "in an emergency, of course it's ok to lie," which may not seem logically sound, but society isn't logically nor is it possible to make it purely logical enough to be a valid ground for Kantian ethics to result in actual virtuous people - because the man that gives up Anne Frank telling the truth is not virtuous, he is a selfish monster, sacrificing a human life for his own sense of virtue and preservation of ethical purity, a disgusting trade off.
Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values?
If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.
> If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.
Not unless you can present some proof of this. Your implicit assumption that we should care about outcomes over principles has its own set of moral failures, like the repugnant conclusion.
Yes yes I'm sure smarter people than me have done lots of interesting logical things to philosophy over the last thousand years.
And I maintain my simple point: if your ethical system doesn't allow the flexibility to not give up Anne Frank, it's a bad ethical system. Unless you believe giving up Anne Frank isn't wrong? Then you're a bad person and shouldn't be considered in conversations about ethics!
Design it in a way to have good outcomes if you're worried about repugnant conclusions. Personally I believe putting it on paper is a fool's errand - vibes based ethics seems to work as good as one can get from an ethical system.
To cheat someone implies there is some obligation owed which is reneged upon, even if that's just the minute obligation owed from one member of a society to another.
In your hypothetical situation, I owe no such obligation to the Nazis who as you'll remember were an occupying force. I entered into no social compact with them.
I put my trust in someone on a case by case basis, unless they're going to cheat someone. Then I don't trust them.