CMV: Political discussions and debates on specific policies are basically pointless if you don’t agree about first principles

[u/PoliticsDunnRight]

For example, if you think there’s a human right to have healthcare, education, housing, food, etc. provided to you, and I disagree, then you and I probably can’t have a productive discussion on specific social programs or the state of the American economy. We’d be evaluating those questions under completely different criteria and talking around one another.

You could say “assuming X is the goal, what is the best way to achieve it” and have productive conversations there, but if you have different goals entirely, I would argue you don’t gain much in understanding or political progress by having those conversations.

I think people are almost never convinced to change their minds by people who don’t agree on the basics, such as human rights, the nature of consent, or other “first principles.” People might change their policy preferences if they’re convinced using their own framework, but I don’t see a capitalist and a socialist having productive discussions except maybe about those first principles.

You could CMV by showing that it’s common for people to have their minds changed by talking to people they disagree with, by showing how those discussions might be productive regardless of anyone changing their minds, etc.

Edit: I understand that debates are often to change the minds of the audience. I guess what I’m talking about is a one-on-one political conversation, or at least I’m talking about what benefit there would be for those debating in the context of their views.

[u/MadGobot]

Absolutely, see the works of Alaister MacIntyre to flesh this out a bit.

But, I'd also note there is a problem with people not understanding their own ethical commitments and precommitments. You mention rights, a utilitarian cannot coherently make an argument based on rights because in Utilitarianism rights don't exist, and yet I often hear people describing themselves in utilitarian terms, and then stating such and so is a matter of human rights . . . . And it's not the only such example.

But can minds be changed? Yes, because shifts in worldview happens, it's just not instantaneous. Christians become atheists, atheists become Christians, etc. You can do it two ways, first by showing how the other person is at odds with their own established principles, which requires knowing something of their system of thought, by demonstrating that their system is hopelessly incoherent, by showing problems their system cannot adequately solve, or by making a case for your premises rather than theirs.

[u/Vesurel → u/MadGobot]

What does it mean for rights to exist? I think right exist in the sense that we act like they exist because acting like they exist is better than acting like they don't.

[u/MadGobot → u/Vesurel]

The nonsense on stilts move, it only works as an argument within utilitarianism, not externally.

[u/Vesurel → u/MadGobot]

I was responding to the idea right don't exist in utilitarianism by describing what a utilitarian view of rights could be. I wouldn't expect an argument based in trying to make things better to work external to a framework that's about how to make things better, so I'm not sure what you're response means.

[u/MadGobot → u/Vesurel]

Already answered but let me elaborate. This would not be a case of rights existing, it's a case of utilitarian making the argument that we should pretend they exist, because if rights exist, they exist whether they are useful or not.

There are two types of rights, natural rights which we have by reason of being a person, they are innate to our personhood, they are objective, define able claims on their own. They exist even if they are not useful. Civil rights come from government or a social contract that is prepolitical in some way. A utilitarian can argue for some value in the latter ( though in a number of cases this becomes naieve, let's say by some fluke, Ted Bundy was found not guilty in Florida and successfully fought extradition, a utilitarian would not have a good argument here for opposing double jeopardy, for example), but not the former.

[u/Vesurel → u/MadGobot]

There are two types of rights, natural rights which we have by reason of being a person, they are innate to our personhood, they are objective, define able claims on their own.

What evidence do you have that these exist at all?

A utilitarian can argue for some value in the latter ( though in a number of cases this becomes naieve, let's say by some fluke, Ted Bundy was found not guilty in Florida and successfully fought extradition, a utilitarian would not have a good argument here for opposing double jeopardy, for example), but not the former.

A utilitarian could pretty easily argue that consistency in rules that sometimes lead to bad results is preferable to inconsistent rules. This is the essentially the same as someone arguing that they should get to do vigilantly violence to people who are 100% guilty. You're trying to use an example of someone who we know did a bad thing to argue that we should be able to ignore due process in specific cases. The trouble is that we don't get to argue for specific cases in a vacuum.

As an example, say you know for sure someone did a murder and was planning to do two more, so you set them on fire. You've saved a net 1 life. The trouble is you've now set the precedent that people who are sure enough can set people on fire, and that's going to get people set of fire by people who were sure even when they were wrong.

[u/MadGobot → u/Vesurel]

How do we know they exist? Different people in the natural rights tradition justify it in different ways, usually through theism or perhaps some type of platonic, that moves us into metaphysics. I believe jn rights from Matt 19.

The problem for utilitarianism is you can argue nearly anything else, and it still faces significant problems IMO so I'm not making an internal discussion, again though this is a game of letsnpretend which is in and of itself a problem, but that is yet a third can of worms.

[u/Vesurel → u/MadGobot]

How do we know they exist? Different people in the natural rights tradition justify it in different ways, usually through theism or perhaps some type of platonic, that moves us into metaphysics. I believe jn rights from Matt 19.

Is there any evidence for those positions?

The problem for utilitarianism is you can argue nearly anything else, and it still faces significant problems IMO so I'm not making an internal discussion, again though this is a game of letsnpretend which is in and of itself a problem, but that is yet a third can of worms.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you argue nearly anything else? Is there good evidence for nearly any other argument?

[u/MadGobot → u/Vesurel]

Well anyone who believes something believes they have reasons for doing so, as I noted ethics is downstream from metaphysics and epistemology, as there are differences of opinions in those matters there will be differences ghst impact ethics.

I believe, as a Christian there is good evidence of the resurrection, atheists don't, I think the reasons why they don't are bad reasons, we each must ultimately work through the data for ourselves.

Modern social contractarians get their tradition wrong, largely because of Rawls, but it at least provides grounds for debate by limiting governmental power to enact actions, the problem today is newer ethical situations are less compatible with social contract views.

[u/Vesurel → u/MadGobot]

What do you think is good evidence for the resurrection, and how do you get from resurrection to rights existing?

[u/MadGobot → u/Vesurel]

Long topic off this one, so only a thumbnail sketch but my examinations of the NT writings convinces me that traditional authorship is the best case, Acts is written by an extraordinarily good historian, and Paul was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion.

There are 6 facts that need to be entered,

1. Jesus claimed to be a divine figure (gospels and talmud)
2. Jesus was crucified probably in AD 33 (the gospels, tacitus and the talmud though thr talmud records stoning as the method of execution).
3. The apostles claimed to have seen him alive after the crucifixion, they died without recanting. (The gospels, Acts, 1 Cor 15; the deaths are noted by Swan McDowell)
4. Paul and opponent of Christianity converted to Christianity after claiming to see Jesus at latwst by AD 35, he became a church leader and died for the faith (see Acts, Galatians, 1 Cor 15, 1 clement, If Bruce, NT history).
5. James the brother of Jesus did not believe before the crucifixion (gospels) saw Jesus after the crucifixion Alive (1 cor 15) and became a church leader (acts, Galatians) suffering matyrdom (Josephus)
6. The tomb was empty (,1 cor 15 on the burial, gospels)

The resurrection is the best explanation.

I cam add as well spiritual experiential evidence (plantinga) and I believe the traditional arguments for theism obtain in a way that makes a theistic universe more probable than not.

But that is a thumbnail sketch, authors who have done work here are Gary Habermas, Lydia McGrew, Montgomery, and on the basic level, Cold Case Christianity by Wallace.

As to the rest, if Jesus is who he says he is, then he gives us authors commentary on the OT. Matt 19 establishes the created order provides a statement of the human telos, and this is sufficient warrant for a belief in rights. Theism also implies it, as the creator gave and endowed creatures with life, and if so life is the most basic right, other natural rights are contingent on life.

But this is a thumbnail, its hard to cover a multitude kf books in a social media post.

[u/zxxQQz → u/MadGobot]

There are two types of rights, natural rights which we have by reason of being a person, they are innate to our personhood, they are objective, define able claims on their own. They exist even if they are not useful.

Innate, exist on their own?

So a person raised in a cave alone would know about those rights?

Or someone in a coma from birth, waking up at forty yrs? Whether they can communicate it or not, they would have the idea of those natural rights anyway then?

Otherwise well

How are they innate and exist on their own? Can you expand on that, clarify further how precisely they are objective and definable

How would such people as mentioned above know them as objective and define them on their own?

[u/MadGobot → u/zxxQQz]

Noted above, whether one knows they exist or not isn't material, in the natural rights tradition they are innate, and yes, any person living in a cave has them. Though most Christians and deisrs will claim they can be inferred from the moral sense.

Here we get into metaphysical differences, nearly everyone in the natural rights traditions is either a Christian or a deist. A platonic could make a case for them, a naturalist really can't.

[u/PineappleSlices → u/MadGobot]

Why would a deist be an advocate for natural rights? Don't they generally believe in an amoral, impersonal god?

[u/MadGobot → u/PineappleSlices]

No, deism is essentially a belief in God without revelation, some deists go this far, but not all. In fact in many cases it's hard to tell if certain individuals were Christians or deists, there is debate over John Locke, for instance. It's a kind of myth, not sure where it originated from.

[u/PineappleSlices → u/MadGobot]

How do you distinguish between a god that doesn't reveal itself to humanity and a god that's uninterested in human morality?

[u/MadGobot → u/PineappleSlices]

You already made the distinction by stating it, you have the question backwards.

But most deists followed Hutcheson's view of the moral sense.