ummester Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said: You may decide to take a side in completel ignorance of the opposing view, but most people make a more informed choice when taking sides in a debate/argument. No, they don't. Most people come into any debate with their own history and belief set. very few come into a debate entirely open minded. Look around, everyone argues for what they believe in. Very few argue against what they believe. Those who take up a stance contrary to their beliefs will expand their minds quicker than those that take up a stance in line with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, ummester said: Value judgements are emotional and subjective, they should have nothing to do with research and logic. Look, I know, ultimately no human can make a decision or choice that is not, in some way, subjective. Unfortunately, our humanity always gets in the way of true logic. Yet this does not mean that we are not all inherently ignorant on some level because of our very subjective natures. How on earth does one even determine what the goal should be without emotions and subjectivity? Without value judgements? There is not a coldly logical goal for every single question we face, even utilitarian decision making can still require a value judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, karaddin said: There is not a coldly logical goal for every single question we face, even utilitarian decision making can still require a value judgement. Only if you let yourself be emotionally involved with the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 ...No. The problem is inherently subjective, because there is no objective "goal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 29 minutes ago, karaddin said: ...No. The problem is inherently subjective, because there is no objective "goal". What's the problem? This thread presented the problem of defining tolerance - and it was, as enduring something one finds adverse. My initial response was to this: Tolerance is for those truly too cowardly or polite to stand up against ignorance and hatred. And this is not true, not only because it does not fit the definition of tolerance but also because ignorance and hatred always have a flipside. Whatever subjective stance any human takes, a contrary stance can also be taken by another. Ultimately, no subjective stance or opinion adopted by any human will ever be objectively more or less correct than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 You made a generalised statement about value judgements and subjectivity which I was replying to, that didn't seem to be in the context of tolerance. Let's just drop this and not derail further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 hours ago, ummester said: No, they don't. Most people come into any debate with their own history and belief set. very few come into a debate entirely open minded. Look around, everyone argues for what they believe in. Very few argue against what they believe. Those who take up a stance contrary to their beliefs will expand their minds quicker than those that take up a stance in line with it. That isn't ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 59 minutes ago, karaddin said: You made a generalised statement about value judgements and subjectivity which I was replying to, that didn't seem to be in the context of tolerance. Let's just drop this and not derail further. Oh, I think I worked it out - you mean this bit: 2 hours ago, karaddin said: How on earth does one even determine what the goal should be without emotions and subjectivity? Without value judgements? Goals don't have to be tied to emotions, subjectivity or value judgements. It depends entirely on what the goal is. When an armless beggar in a 3rd world country begs for food, their goal is to eat. When a Westerner makes a social statement, their goal is to feel better about themselves. One is obviously more objective than the other, as one is more a mechanical requirement of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said: That isn't ignorance. No but it is more ignorant than having a totally open mind. Any belief must close a human mind to other possibility by some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.