Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-06-2017, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,715,607 times
Reputation: 1667

Advertisements

(Note: If you are in a hurry, you can get the key points by just reading the sentences in bold type.)
Is it immoral to offer your opinions in these political forums? I suspect that most of use would agree that the obvious answer is "no" it's not immoral. It is obviously okay have opinions and it is okay to voice opinions. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that this forum is a hot bed of immorality, and that a majority of you contribute to this rampant unethical behavior. If I am right about this, then a second question arises: Does it have to be this way? Or could we, realistically, have a thread in which a morally sound discussion takes place?

My proposition: I propose that is it immoral to strongly assert your opinion on an important controversial topic if you have not made at least some serious effort to contemplate the opposing views.

Explanation of terms:
For my purposes here, the term "strongly assert" means to state your opinion using wording that implies that you are extremely confident because you have studied and weighted BOTH sides of a debate, and you think the overall evidence and arguments overwhelmingly favor the position you have chosen to express. (If you have not studied both sides of a debate, it would be perfectly acceptable to say something roughly like this: "I have not thought about this in detail, but my inclination is to think that X is correct." Or even, just simply, "I think X is probably correct." Notice the disclaimer, or lack of forcefulness, makes it reasonably clear that you are not an authority on the subject, and/or you have not taken the time to study both sides of the issue.)

The term "important controversial topic" refers to topics that generally lead to heated debates and have significant impact on people's lives. E.g., immigration policies, taxation rates, biases in various news media, etc. This stands in contrast to mere matters of personal preference or taste, e.g., "I like carrots" or "I think Prince is a great musician." You don't need to weight evidence or study arguments in order to have a preference, and even if you did, no significant social harm would come from the expression of your opinion, one way or the other.

Why immoral? If you strongly assert an opinion, but you have not given any serious consideration to the evidence and arguments against your position, then there is a high probability that you are promoting falsehoods. You are, in effect, probably doing reckless harm to society. If you drive recklessly and hit someone, you are morally responsible for the harm that is done. You didn't intend to hurt anyone, so the harm is technically accidental, but the fact that you were driving recklessly means that you are still to blame for the harm, even though you didn't mean to do any harm. The harm done by recklessly stating opinions in a strong way is not as immediate or as obvious as a car accident, but harm is nevertheless done when falsehoods become "memes" or "viral" in a culture.

In a forum like this, it is unlikely that any one of us has any powerful impact on other people. If you say, for example, "The New York Times is full of fake news" it is unlikely that anyone here will immediate agree with you just because you said it. But when something is said often enough, and strongly enough, by enough people, it starts to have genuine impact, for better or worse. If it happens to be a fact that the NYT is full of fake news, then all is well, but if not, then there is a good chance that the reputation of the newspaper is being unfairly damaged for no reason other than political spite. If that happens, then a reasonably good source of news will be demonized - meaning, some people will immediately ignore certain news just because it is published in the NYT. For these people, a potential source of views alternative to their own will be ignored. This becomes worse when the entire spectrum of "mainstream" news is demonized. If you are inclined to think that the media is biased, your response should not be ignore the news but, rather, to read it more carefully and look for EVIDENCE for and against your favored opinion.

I'm using news media as an example because it is such a powerful source of opinions, but the same principle applies to all important controversial topics. My basic point is that real harm is done when falsehoods "go viral" in a society. The specific mechanism by which falsehoods go viral is reasonably clear: People strongly stating opinions that are not based on anything beyond the parroting of someone else's opinion. I'm saying that anyone who recklessly contributes to this process is morally responsible for the harm that is done.

There are, of course, genuine differences of values, etc., that will never disappear. Two people can look for evidence and think about a topic and still reach different conclusions. Strong opinions that come out of this process are perfectly acceptable and are even essential to a healthy society. But when an opinion is based on ONE side of a controversial issue without any serious consideration of the alternative viewpoint, the spreading of opinions loses its healthy character and becomes harmful in a way that can contribute to significant human suffering.

Is it possible to have a healthy discussion in a forum like this? I'd like to think so. The key is to demand specific details - examples, evidence, references to sources of information, etc. - whenever someone offers a strongly stated opinion that is not supported by anything. Anyone who has, in fact, formulated an opinion based on some contemplation of the opposing viewpoint can easily outline their reasons for their choice - or they can, at least, reference the source of the information that has had the most impact on their view.

Perhaps this thread can be an experiment, or a place to practice constructive political discussion. Pick an opinion that you have stated in some other thread, post it here, then see if you can back up this opinion with specific examples, references, evidence, and logical argumentation. I would be curious to see if constructive discussion can exist here. I'm also curious, of course, to hear arguments against my claim that recklessly stated strong opinions are immoral.

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-06-2017 at 03:21 PM..

 
Old 01-06-2017, 02:46 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,718,892 times
Reputation: 1721
Define, per your setup, moral/immoral vs legal.

Example: gun control. One can have thoroughly thought thru this topic from your outlined premise yet, legally it is all moot as ownership of a firearm is legal unless one has legally forfeited that right.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,715,607 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Define, per your setup, moral/immoral vs legal.

Example: gun control. One can have thoroughly thought thru this topic from your outlined premise yet, legally it is all moot as ownership of a firearm is legal unless one has legally forfeited that right.
Laws can be changed. Even the Constitution can be changed. Changes of this sort happen on the basis politicians making changes that are significantly affected by social discussion. There are no guarantees, of course, but I believe that, in general, we will have better laws and or Constitutional amendments if the social discussions, in general, are guided more by informed opinion than by partisan bunkering (where large core groups hear only what they want to hear because they are not making any serious effort to contemplate the views of their opposition). My claim of "immorality" is based on what I believe is real harm done when falsehoods become memes in a society.

Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-06-2017 at 03:29 PM..
 
Old 01-06-2017, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,858 posts, read 17,229,731 times
Reputation: 14459
I have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,715,607 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I have no clue what you're talking about.
The OP is rather long, so I can't blame anyone for being confused. If you just read the sentences highlighted in bold type, the basic idea should be clear. If not, perhaps someone who understands my point can say it more clearly, or more cleverly, than I did.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 03:26 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,718,892 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Laws can be changed. Even the Constitution can be changed. Changes of this sort happen on the basis the political system making changes that are significantly affected by social discussion. There are no guarantees, of course, but I believe that, in general, we will have better laws and or Constitutional amendments if the social discussions, in general, are guided more by informed opinion than by partisan bunkering (where large core groups hear only what they want to hear because they are not making any serious effort to contemplate the views of their opposition).
I get all that, however, in the spirit of your premise, you may want to flush out the legal aspect. Why? It removes 'should' from consideration.

1. No one here can change that law
2. The emotional logic, say on gun control, is quickly and decisively nullified simply by 'it is legal'.
3. That will inevitably result in emotion fueleds, extending to partisan, bickering from the side wanting to affect change but has no legal leg to stand on.

That's why I chose gun control as the example vs. , say, abortion. Owning a firearm is a constitutionally guaranteed right by amendment whereas abortion is a court ruling on doctor-patient privilege extended to abortion.

To further the example, when those argue for gun control from the emotional appeal and get upset, I often counter on restricting speech to not hear what the majority doesn't want to hear. It really ticks people off who then make more emotional appeals and, often, pejorative name calling. Courts have upheld and struck down numerous legislations that violated the right guaranteed by either amendment. Further note: those rights are restrictions on, not rights granted by, the Federal Government. Again a huge difference from a moral/immoral argument on what one can/should be able to do with their body.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,715,607 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
1. No one here can change that law
2. The emotional logic, say on gun control, is quickly and decisively nullified simply by 'it is legal'.
3. That will inevitably result in emotion fueleds, extending to partisan, bickering from the side wanting to affect change but has no legal leg to stand on.
Like most issues, the debate over gun control probably can't be decided by mere facts. Values will play a major role, and when all is said and done, we probably have to "agree to disagree" on values. Disagreements based on differences in core value are okay. The inertia of tradition and/or majority-held values end of winning, and that's okay. Laws and/or the Constitution will change or remain unaffected, accordingly. But, for some people, their values on this topic might not be cemented. So, for example, gun-violence statistics might make a difference to these people. If statistics are skewed - or even just plain falsified - in order to make the problem seem worse or better than it is, then this is immoral. To then recklessly pass along these "statistics" would be immoral, even if the harm that is done is unintentional (as with my comparison to reckless driving).

How can you recognize bad stats? You can't always, but you can at least take reasonable precautions by checking the source and reading opposing views. If the stats are bad, then the opposition will probably have noticed this by now, and there will be articles giving reasons/evidence for thinking that the stats are bad. If you read both sides and can't decide which side has a better grasp of the facts, then the correct thing to do is to admit that you don't know the stats, or admit that the evidenced is vague, but you are inclined to believe X. This is different than simply saying in a forceful and intimidating tone "These statistics are proof" or "These statistics are hogwash" merely because they agree or disagree with your favored political position.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,715,607 times
Reputation: 1667
BTW: An important side-note to what I've been saying is "The Principle of Charity" commonly found in academic philosophy and critical thinking. Roughly: You should, for the purposes of argument, assume that your opponent has a rational point of view and you should interpret your opponent's argument in a way that makes their argument as strong as possible. (I.e., don't just look for the weakest interpretation then knock it down - that's what leads to the "straw man fallacy," which ends up weakening your own position.) If you abide by the Principle of Charity, you are less likely to overlook the best evidence in favor of your opponent's position. This will promote healthy debate and somewhat lessen the likelihood of mere name-calling and random screaming at each other.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
1,871 posts, read 4,251,019 times
Reputation: 2937
Both sides in an argument often claim to have a monopoly on what the facts are. Even when you can identify and agree on an indisputable fact, simply leaving out another fact can cast an entirely different light on a subject.

Someone citing a study isn't enough really. Just because you cite a study which would seem to support an argument, unless you have the time to actually verify the study actually took place, had the skills to evaluate its methodology *and* make sure that parts of the study that might contradict an opinion haven't been left out then it's just someone making a claim.

If it was a requirement to verify studies and research etc then the only people who could debate would be academics.

For example, almost every national media outlet projected that Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide--it was only a matter of by how much. They cited all kinds of research which was well respected and repeated by other media outlets and analysts.

Gee, that really worked out well.
 
Old 01-06-2017, 04:33 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,124,363 times
Reputation: 12100
I speak plainly and bluntly. If that offends someone tough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top