Note 1: This observation does not go for every American and everyone posting here. If the shoe doesn't fit you, no need to feel adressed. Yet, after being around here for some time and by participating in some discussions, I can't help but to see some paterns in what some would call a "typical way Americans enter discussions". Note 2: This is not supposed to be another thread about "left vs right". Please leave those sentiments at the door. Especially if you just spout your one liner and basically block the topic. "Leftists/Rightwingers always do this. They are done and they know it." I would instead like to discuss some logical fallasies, or arguments that do not make sense to me, an outsider at least. - The constitution/founding fathers are sacred. All democracies have a constitution and all nations have historical figures that are very important to them in a way. It does not mean these people are always right, or what they said is still relevant or accurate today by default. The Founding Fathers were human like all of us and naturally flawed and might have had their own scandals in their time. Using the Founding Fathers (or one of them) as an argument alone, is simply an "appeal to authority". A constitution and it's amendments aren't set in stone either. They have been changed before and it's legally possible to adapt them for a reason. As far as I'm concerned, laws (including the constitution) should always serve the people instead of the other way around. What should be relevant instead, is whether there is support to maintain, change or remove amendments, which can change over time. - The main way of counter argument seems to attack the source. By shooting the messenger, or by slandering/discrediting the source, the actual topic is no longer discussed. Instead, you get a "yes - no" discussion about whether the source is clean and relevant, or whether it's biased, untrustworthy or has other flaws. In fact, accepted replies seem to be one liners in which something is attacked without a decent argumentation. I'm personally surprised one liners and personal attacks are a valid response on a page that is supposed to be an intellectual forum for discussion. I'm not asking moderators to come down on it hard, but I'm calling up on people to "step up their game". - A high level of confirmation bias. Apparantly news feeds that suit people are enough to call something proven or disproven and other news feeds are "fake news" and can be automatically ignored. I'd say partisan feelings are too strong for a decent discussion. - The reverence of individuals. I honestly don't get the nearly worship of individuals. As I said earlier, everyone's human and has his/her own flaws. Do you honestly have to stick to someone unconditionally? The opposite holds true too; do you really hate someone that much to believe everything that has been said against him/her blindly? The guy I voted for, is just a guy in a suit that happens to represent the ideology I prefer. I would not be surprised if that guy would happen to be embroiled in some conflict or scandal sooner or later. - Generalisation. I honestly believe either side(s) have their collection of capable administrators, *******s, liars and capable politicians. No side has a moral high ground and no one needs to be banded together with extremists from either side. I wonder what the responses to this will be. I'd say America would be happier if they would actually discuss substance instead of emotion and history. If you can't get over your partisan feelings, what's the point of taking part in a discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Our founding fathers are not being put up as an appeal to authority, but rather as arguments that have long been made, so it's more of an appeal to what they have written. Not who they are. The constitution is the law of the land, so when we talk about the constitution, we are talking about the law. It can be changed, and that's fine. I agree. No side has the moral high ground? I guess you don't believe in ethics. No more needs to be said.
Just in case I didn't make it clear yet. I don't say all arguments where the constitution or founding fathers are named are flawed by default. I do think it's flawed if the argument stops after naming either without explaining further. I'd still say quoting a historical figure as an argument seems very flawed to me, because they can be wrong or flawed still. I believe in ethics, but people need to realise that your personal ethics aren't necessarily the ethics of others. There is no golden set of ethics that is superior to others and ethics change over time.
As I said, it's not the person, but the arguments they put forth. If I say John Adams, I'm not talking about the man who was diapered by his mom and probably had a severe case of acne as a teenager, but rather his ideas concerning taxation. No golden set of ethics? Then you don't understand ethics, or philosophy. Philosophy is about universals. That means we do believe there is a golden set of ethics.
I don't think you understand me fully. If people first refer to John Adams and THEN use the arguments he used, people can respond to said arguments. If they just name John Adams, it's a logical fallacy. I understand ethics perfectly well. We do have universals, but those universals aren't shared by everyone. Laws are erected based on popular support, but can be altered or removed due to a change of popular support. Hence, ethics are always changing due to an everchanging population and popular support. Alternative ethics can be valued either and can be rejected, which means they die out. Facism for example nearly died out due to WW2 carrying on much longer than needed, but it still survived. In some countries, it's making a comeback or is actually dominant. Only the future will tell us which ideology or which set of morals turn out to be the "right one". Obviously I have my personal preferences and for example hope facism dies out.
There are two John Adams'. There's the guy who probably his own share of problems, and then there are the ideas he espoused. If somebody refers to the former, then... I dunno why they would do that, but maybe they are talking about colonial times. I don't know, but none of us know who he was. His ideas have survived, if not the actual physical man. nuff said. You don't understand philosophy.
Let me rephrase then. There are actual "universals" but there will be people that won't agree to those universals. Universals aren't actually universals and they haven't been the same throughout the ages. Name a "universal" and I'll tell you why it isn't.
As I wrote previously, you don't believe in ethics, because ethics is the idea that there are universals. Laws that are true no matter what. You want me to name a universal so you can chew it up and spit it out? Okay, how about the non-aggression principle?
I'd just read this for starters. It's really easily accessible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics It doesn't say universals are actually set in stone and shared by everyone. It does differ between "right and wrong", but does not define what is actually "right" or "wrong". The link continues then to explain in which way you can define "right" and "wrong", but those aren't in agreement. Do you take the "virtue" approach or the "rational approach" or something else? Some people are perfectly fine with agression without real cause on several levels. Some people are perfectly prepared to perform armed robberies or to steal from individuals in another way. On a national level, nations have been found prepared to act agressively towards other nations just for the sake of profit, especially through the ages. Again, any argument can be made against any set of values or ethics that people think are common sense or shared by everyone, but are in fact not.
A principle is not something that people must necessarily accept, but rather that it's something that is necessarily good. There can be bad people. This is what ethics says. There can be bad people and good people, and it is possible to differentiate between the two. It's not easy to do that, and I do have what I believe is a valid rebuttal against the non-aggression principle. It's just that I do hold out for the idea that we can differentiate between good and bad.
But the principle needs to be defined. For example, the definition of the non agression principle is defined like this: "The non-aggression principle (or NAP, also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism.[2][3][4][5]" Does that for example, include pre emptive striking? Does a casus belli or just cause, include the principle? If so, which ones? As long as people can't agree on it, I'd say "universals" aren't actually because people give them a different definition still. The wiki link I gave differentiates between what is good or bad. If you follow for example, the rational line, in some cases it's easy to justify agressive behaviour. If you follow the virtue line, it's a lot harder. I personally lean towards a combined line, which is strongly influenced by personal perferences and ideology.
Casus belli does include the case for war because the NAP does include the ability to defend yourself. You still keep pointing out that people can have different opinions, but this isn't an argument. It's readily conceded that people can disagree with what is good or bad. What is not conceded is the ability to say what is good or bad as a universal. No matter what or who or when, bad is bad and good is good. I'm far beyond reading wiki links for ethics. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy requires that there be a universal principle, If you don't do universals, you don't do philo. That's just how that is.
Good post. I am a German who has emigrated to the US about 15 years ago. I agree with a lot of your post. In Germany, the political discussion can, of course, get heated, but there is none of that personality cult and the "your side always bad, my side always good" type of argument. I was an Obama supporter, but I saw plenty of flaws with the man and have often criticized him. Of course, reading the constant ODS attacks of him over nothing on this forum made me stick up more for him and become more polarized myself. I think that the political climate here has definitely become toxic. The problem is that there are people benefiting from the polarization and, thus, it is perpetuated. What especially irks me is the posters who post random internet videos, many of them fake, to satisfy their own conformation bias, as you correctly point out, purportedly "showing" that the other side is immoral, thugs, violent...., you pick your bad word.
A CB can be faked or could be "conquest" in some cases. I'm disputing that "good" and "bad" are universally defined. IF you read the link I gave carefully, there are several ways to define whether something is "good" or "bad". I'd provide a different link, but the page seems to be accurate from what I was taught. Universal principles are not universally defined. I can do philosophy. I just have to keep in the back of my head that I imprint my personal values and ideology once I enter it.
Which is why I said in my first post that you don't do ethics. You are disputing the very idea that there are universals. That takes you right out of the conversation because the whole idea of ethics is that we can say "X is bad" and it doesn't matter if you disagree, or not. Read that one back to yourself. Universal principles are not universally defined? You don't understand ethics. It's not a list of things that you find good and bad, but rather a list of things that are universally good and bad.
I think we are simply not agreeing on the definition of ethics. I'm taught and I know that it doesn't require universals to discuss ethics. I agree people think there are universals, but I simply do not agree due to the many ways to define definitions and ways to approach them. I can give a simple example. I put a gun to someone's head and take his money. Because I did it, I can provide myself and my family with food for 2 weeks. The rational line says I did "good". The virtue line says I did "bad" due to breaking the laws and by forcefully taking someone else's property. After reading the link again, I think you're stuck in the "virtue line". Use control + f to search it, but the virtue line is not the only line in ethics. Contemporary virtue ethics[edit] Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response to G. E. M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics, which does not necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up to "universal standards", or that those who wish to be utilitarian or consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction.[17] Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue, was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue based on cultural norms, not objective standards.[17] Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre's relativism, among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach".[18] Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century[19] blended the Eastern virtue ethics and the Western virtue ethics, with some modifications to suit the 21st Century, and formed a part of contemporary virtue ethics.[19] I'd also like to get back to the main topic here. You can pm me about ethics later if you want.
Already responded to it. I don't think we differ too much in opinion. I hope more people weigh in. Last thing I want to say on the other part of the discussion is that social studies don't do absolutes in general.
Eerily quiet in here. I actually thought people were willing to chime in considering how accusations fly wild.
