Often the crux of a disagreement between people boils down to a starting premise, intuition, moral belief, preference, or value that they are unlikely to change (or whose justification or source comes from an entirely different realm, i.e. moral philosophy or personal emotions and psychology). It seems to me that sometimes either one or both people in the disagreement willfully (not always sure whether consciously or subconsciously) ignore this because:
they know that this disagreement is insurmountable, or
they don’t want to explicitly state the premises they’re using, perhaps because they are unpopular, or unlikely to be held by the other person, or because they are not politically correct
So instead, the argument proceeds as if the main question is one of logic or empirical evidence. But this is a waste of time, and risks confusing someone into agreeing if they don’t recognize the reliance on a premise they don’t hold.
Well, you say “risks confusing someone into agreeing”, but I bet someone using this tactic thinks of it as a positive outcome, “even though” it’s dishonest if they gave it some thought. Or maybe not even considered fully dishonest, in the sense that whenever some ‘unpopular’ topic can come up (especially in a public online environment) things can get very easily derailed by other participants to latch onto (if you believe this unpopular thing is true then it is unpopular due to some ‘currently dominating’ negative connotation or view you find unjustified).
I see people not realizing that others could possibly have different principles; or that they don’t really know what principles they hold, nor which are fundamental. To the extent they are aware they don’t really feel like principles—does “murder is bad” feel like a moral principle that you ought to clarify in discussions?
part of the plural political process, and big tent coalition building, is the idea that many people, of different innate desires, are capable of reaching the same agreement, even if their paths must differ
If all such cases of collaboration are dismissed as mere deception—if the requirement for societal cooperation was defined by one’s full precepts—most communities would be best described as a lie as well
Trigger warning: vague insight-porny content
Often the crux of a disagreement between people boils down to a starting premise, intuition, moral belief, preference, or value that they are unlikely to change (or whose justification or source comes from an entirely different realm, i.e. moral philosophy or personal emotions and psychology). It seems to me that sometimes either one or both people in the disagreement willfully (not always sure whether consciously or subconsciously) ignore this because:
they know that this disagreement is insurmountable, or
they don’t want to explicitly state the premises they’re using, perhaps because they are unpopular, or unlikely to be held by the other person, or because they are not politically correct
So instead, the argument proceeds as if the main question is one of logic or empirical evidence. But this is a waste of time, and risks confusing someone into agreeing if they don’t recognize the reliance on a premise they don’t hold.
This is pretty close to what MacIntyre says when hes talking about why academic philosophy sucks, fwiw.
Well, you say “risks confusing someone into agreeing”, but I bet someone using this tactic thinks of it as a positive outcome, “even though” it’s dishonest if they gave it some thought. Or maybe not even considered fully dishonest, in the sense that whenever some ‘unpopular’ topic can come up (especially in a public online environment) things can get very easily derailed by other participants to latch onto (if you believe this unpopular thing is true then it is unpopular due to some ‘currently dominating’ negative connotation or view you find unjustified).
I see people not realizing that others could possibly have different principles; or that they don’t really know what principles they hold, nor which are fundamental. To the extent they are aware they don’t really feel like principles—does “murder is bad” feel like a moral principle that you ought to clarify in discussions?
part of the plural political process, and big tent coalition building, is the idea that many people, of different innate desires, are capable of reaching the same agreement, even if their paths must differ
If all such cases of collaboration are dismissed as mere deception—if the requirement for societal cooperation was defined by one’s full precepts—most communities would be best described as a lie as well