- 14 Nov 2017 02:58
#14862463
I was thinking yesterday that almost every argument I've had with a person about politics or policy can probably be simplified down to three principles or arguments. To my memory, no one has ever actually refuted any of these three principles and I'd be interested to see if anyone can disagree with them if I lay them out clearly.
1) If I'm going to let experts dictate policy in a way that requires me to change my life, I expect that (a) the expert be proven right most of the time over the long term and (b) that the changes be applied to everyone unless there is a strict necessity, such as militarily, for it to be otherwise.
This most commonly applies to environmentalist arguments. Environmentalist models haven't proven to be consistently right (basically the opposite of that), so (a) is not satisfied here. The prevalence of private jets and multiple giant homes among leading environmentalists means that (b) is not satisfied.
2) Any social values or policies need to be compatible with people's inevitable desire to continue their family lines. Values that run contrary to this have no long-term staying power.
This applies to various socially liberal policies. You can talk about being nice to the homosexuals and other kinds of deviants but the existence of bisexuals and "recovered" homosexuals makes it clear that socially conservative policies do contribute to the continuation of families. These desires are normal, inevitable and ultimately necessary; they need no other defense.
3) Any philosophical argument should be useful to people in some manner other than having an argument for the sake of having an argument. This doesn't mean useful in a strictly physical or utilitarian sense, it just means avoiding semantics and nihilism by staying focused upon a stated goal. If the goal and a debate's relationship to it can't be clearly stated and understood by all participants then the philosophy is serving no purpose within a given exchange.
1) If I'm going to let experts dictate policy in a way that requires me to change my life, I expect that (a) the expert be proven right most of the time over the long term and (b) that the changes be applied to everyone unless there is a strict necessity, such as militarily, for it to be otherwise.
This most commonly applies to environmentalist arguments. Environmentalist models haven't proven to be consistently right (basically the opposite of that), so (a) is not satisfied here. The prevalence of private jets and multiple giant homes among leading environmentalists means that (b) is not satisfied.
2) Any social values or policies need to be compatible with people's inevitable desire to continue their family lines. Values that run contrary to this have no long-term staying power.
This applies to various socially liberal policies. You can talk about being nice to the homosexuals and other kinds of deviants but the existence of bisexuals and "recovered" homosexuals makes it clear that socially conservative policies do contribute to the continuation of families. These desires are normal, inevitable and ultimately necessary; they need no other defense.
3) Any philosophical argument should be useful to people in some manner other than having an argument for the sake of having an argument. This doesn't mean useful in a strictly physical or utilitarian sense, it just means avoiding semantics and nihilism by staying focused upon a stated goal. If the goal and a debate's relationship to it can't be clearly stated and understood by all participants then the philosophy is serving no purpose within a given exchange.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!