Originally posted by bbarr
Nope. I have never seen an argument change a person's political position. I have never seen an argument convince a Republican that taxation ought to be progressive. I've never seen an argument convince a Democrat that affirmative action is unfair. Etc etc.
Bbarr: "Nope. I have never seen an argument change a person's political position."
Have you ever changed your political position on a major issue based on an argument ?
Which major issue was that ?
Originally posted by bbarrPeople don't change their minds over night.
Nope. I have never seen an argument change a person's political position. I have never seen an argument convince a Republican that taxation ought to be progressive. I've never seen an argument convince a Democrat that affirmative action is unfair. Etc etc.
But discussing matters and trading information can lead to a change of heart in the long run.
Originally posted by shavixmirThat is obviously right. Witness the civil rights movements of the 50's and 60's here in the U.S. What I've never seen is a couple people engage in a political debate about a core position (e.g., how folks ought to be taxed, how health care ought to be structured, to what extent there should be social safety net, etc.) where one ends up convinced that their position was, in fact, incorrect. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it.
People don't change their minds over night.
But discussing matters and trading information can lead to a change of heart in the long run.
Originally posted by bbarrI can't call to mind such an instance either. Isn't that a savage indictment of human rationality? That opinions matter more because they are one's own opinion, or one's group's opinion, than that they are true?
Nope. I have never seen an argument change a person's political position. I have never seen an argument convince a Republican that taxation ought to be progressive. I've never seen an argument convince a Democrat that affirmative action is unfair. Etc etc.
However, perhaps some of it comes down to the fact that people just have different value systems that are as futile to argue about as whether Marmite tastes good or not.
For example, if I have liberal sympathies, I will favour progressive taxation, because I prefer to protect the blamelessly poor *even at the cost* of tolerating social free-riders, whereas if I have conservative sympathies, I will not favour progressive taxation, because I prefer *not* to tolerate social free-riders *even if* that means *not* protecting the blamelessly poor.
There may not be a common value in terms of which these two positions can be compared.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think you've captured the problem. If my value system is such that I value personal responsibility more than compassion and the minimization of suffering, then I'll not favor a robust social safety net, precisely because I would find the prospect of free-riding offensive to a cherished value. So, do you think that these gaps between value systems can be bridged only via reference to some more fundamental value? If I'm shown that free-riding will be exceptionally rare, and that a great many people who will benefit from the welfare state are not in need because they are lazy or stupid, then it would be irrational for me to withold my endorsement of the social saftey net. Of course, that only follows if I still value compassion to some degree, that is, if I don't think personal responsibility always trumps compassion, no matter what. But such an extreme value system itself seems irrational (to a neo-Kantian, at least).
I can't call to mind such an instance either. Isn't that a savage indictment of human rationality? That opinions matter more because they are one's own opinion, or one's group's opinion, than that they are true?
However, perhaps some of it comes down to the fact that people just have different value systems that are as futile to argue about as w ...[text shortened]... poor.
There may not be a common value in terms of which these two positions can be compared.
Originally posted by bbarr...and THAT is what I was referring to in posting this thread!
That is obviously right. Witness the civil rights movements of the 50's and 60's here in the U.S. What I've never seen is a couple people engage in a political debate about a core position (e.g., how folks ought to be taxed, how health care ought to be structured, to what extent there should be social safety net, etc.) where one ends up convinced that th ...[text shortened]... position was, in fact, incorrect. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrOK then, how does a person acquire their value system? Does it ever change?
I think you've captured the problem. If my value system is such that I value personal responsibility more than compassion and the minimization of suffering, then I'll not favor a robust social safety net, precisely because I would find the ...[text shortened]... lue system itself seems irrational (to a neo-Kantian, at least).
The discussion above is about "liberal" vs. "conservative" value systems and their impact on peoples views on taxation. But politics is about more than taxation. For example, what percentage of public revenue should be devoted to education? Should the government continue to subsidize the auto industry by improving the roads, or should they offer incentives to promote mass transit?
Originally posted by richjohnsonI'm sure that value systems are acquired in virtue of both rational and non-rational factors. I remember arguing for Mondale against Reagan while I was in elementary school, so I can only assume I was modelling my parent's political behavior. With age and reflection I've gotten even more liberal, and these views resonate with me because I'm secular and I endorse a particular ethical view with which liberalism accords very well. My case may not be representative, however, since I study ethical theories and teach about them for a living. It would be interesting to see whay Pawnokeyhole has to say about the development of value systems, as he's the resident expert in social psychology.
OK then, how does a person acquire their value system? Does it ever change?
The discussion above is about "liberal" vs. "conservative" value systems and their impact on peoples views on taxation. But politics is about more than taxation. For example, what percentage of public revenue should be devoted to education? Should the government cont ...[text shortened]... industry by improving the roads, or should they offer incentives to promote mass transit?
Originally posted by bbarrThen they vote Nader?😀
U.S. citizens start off as Democrats in utero, but if the mother abuses drugs, falls down a flight of stairs, etc., the child's political orientation may suffer accordingly.
Politicians are hazardous to your health, so politics is like driving in heavy traffic, crushingly dull, yet as dangerous as the place that Bible-thumpers say most of us are going.(In a handbasket)
Originally posted by bbarrWell, it's interesting. The frequency or intensity with which one more preferred value X is realized (or conversely, violated) relative to the frequency or intensity a less preferred value Y is realized (or conversely, violated), as the result of some policy being instituted, should have a bearing whether or not one supports or rejects that policy.
I think you've captured the problem. If my value system is such that I value personal responsibility more than compassion and the minimization of suffering, then I'll not favor a robust social safety net, precisely because I would find the prospect of free-riding offensive to a cherished value. So, do you think that these gaps between value systems can be ...[text shortened]... what. But such an extreme value system itself seems irrational (to a neo-Kantian, at least).
Thus, if I have liberal sympathies, but a social safety net benefits only a few deserving victims while spawning a large number of undeserving free-riders; or, if I have conservative sympathies, but a social safety net benefits many deserving victims while spawning only a few undeserving free-riders; then in either case I may have sufficient reason to support the policy running counter to my normative political sympathies. A liberal and conservative may still weight more and less preferred values differently, but those weights, being finite, should in principle fail to justify policies, if the evidence says that the most preferred values are realized sufficiently rarely or weakly, or the less preferred values are realized sufficiently often or intensely, or both.
However, we all know what happens in practice: one's perception of the reality of the situation, instead of being empirically driven, is driven by one's values. Moreover, because social reality is nearly always ambiguous, there is nearly always ample room for disagreement. Indeed, social psychologists sometimes measure attitudes indirectly by asking people for frequency estimates of the benefits or costs of particular courses of action (e.g., what % of people have serious psychological problems after having an abortion?)
As Oscar Wilde once said, Truth is rarely pure and never simple. However, people's motives are nearly always impure, and some of them are simple-minded.
However, we all know what happens in practice: one's perception of the reality of the situation, instead of being empirically driven, is driven by one's values. Moreover, because social reality is nearly always ambiguous, there is nearly always ample room for disagreement. Indeed, social psychologists sometimes measure attitudes indirectly by asking people for frequency estimates of the benefits ...[text shortened]... . However, people's motives are nearly always impure, and some of them are simple-minded.It's even worse than that. The putative 'data' upon which decisions concerning matters of fact (or social reality) in political debates are made, are often collected using methodologies biased in favor of a political ideology. Measurements of unemplyment in the U.S., for instance, always fails to include those persons who have given up looking for work. Yet, these measurements are provided to the U.S. electorate as evidence of the state of the U.S. economy and, by implication, the extent to which whichever regime is incumbent is providing for the well-being of the citizenry.
[/b]
It's bad if the evidence is ambiguous, and thus ideology drives interpretation of the data. It's worse is ideology drives "data" collection itself. The construction of social reality indeed...
Jesus. I should have named the thread "The only thing more boring that politics is listening to academics dissect why politics is boring".
Forgive my wise-ass remark or call me simple but trying to make sense of this blowhardness is giving me a headache. I'm going back to my chess games.
Originally posted by darvlaylol, that'll teach you! 😛
Jesus. I should have named the thread "The only thing more boring that politics is listening to academics dissect why politics is boring".
Forgive my wise-ass remark or call me simple but trying to make sense of this blowhardness is giving me a headache. I'm going back to my chess games.
Originally posted by darvlayMost of us have a source we go to for the bottom line for truth. be it
But the Christian faith is built on the Bible which is stated to be the "infallible Word of God". How can you try and debate with someone who takes this incredibly presumptuous statement as fact? Every answer tends to be along the lines of "for the Bible tells me so" which, not-surprisingly, is the line of a children's church song.
dictionaries, text books, and so on.
Kelly